PDA

View Full Version : Remember Remember the 5th of November (the alignment of V)



EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 06:29 PM
I wrote this on my blog in honor of the date, and felt like posting it here (blog is here (evilelitest.blogspot.com) Another thread like this was started last year, as can be seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75310&highlight=alignment) so this felt like a good place to do a follow up



http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00015/81/24/15684218_l.jpg

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, they should be afraid of the creepy masked man with knives



As i don't want to go into a giant paragraph, so i will be short. Yeah, i know he is kinda the poster child for Chaotic Good, but honestly, he is a bit of a bastard. He isn't good by any means, at no point in either the book or the movie he shows any sign of mercy, forgiveness, or even helping people who don't help his schemes in some way (to an extent, he saves the protagonist but more to kill the finger men than anything else). He kills plenty of innocent people who are just doing their jobs (The television producers, normal police men, innocents harmed by the chaos he causes in the movie, too many to count in the books). He is certainly a terrorist, i mean destroying historical buildings to prove a point (and harming innocents in the process) for the goal of both destroying the government and causing general chaos certainly isn't admirable in any way. He mentally and physically tortures one of his best friends so he can brain wash her into becoming his successor, and assassinates a massive amount of people in a very ruthless manner. In the books he tortures a man into insanity by destroying his massive and priceless doll collection, which is really just being a bastard (i mean, why the hell do you need to destroy all that art? Just kill him if you want revenge). His eventual goal in both the comic and the book is to tear down the government, and he doesn't actively promote any reform, which is pretty bad, and his whole deal is a quest for vengeance, which is described as evil in the Book of Vile Darkness.

Now bear in mind, that doesn't make him a bad character in any way. On the contrary, that makes him a very interesting character, at least in the books, because both sides are shown positively and negatively. In the movie there is kinda romantic dramatization of him, which i found rather disturbing (it was a good movie otherwise generally) but in the comics his whole point is to be morally grey. In the comics it is a fight between Fascism and anarchy, while in the movie it is more of a fight between Neo Conservatism and Radical libertinism. So for me at least, i like it because both sides are evil and yet sympathetic. Remember, in D&D good and evil does not mean right and wrong.

Anyways, i'd peg the book version as Chaotic Evil, as he hopes to bring about total destruction of the government to form a new one, while i'd peg the other one as NE, while he is a bit more honorable and actually doubts himself, but never enough to hold himself to a consistent code

from
EE
edit
I hope that picture isn't too big

Fan
2008-11-05, 06:31 PM
I can never forget the 5th of November.
My fathers birthday it allows me not.

Copacetic
2008-11-05, 06:32 PM
Only seen the movie, so I'll say this: Chaotic Neutral.


Sure, he kills innocents. But it is for the greater good. He is striving to make the world a better place, but with morally grey tactics. So Neutral.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 06:39 PM
Only seen the movie, so I'll say this: Chaotic Neutral.


Sure, he kills innocents. But it is for the greater good. He is striving to make the world a better place, but with morally grey tactics. So Neutral.

Murder is still murder. If saying its for the Greater good keeps you from being evil, then nobody would be evil (because honestly, everybody uses that excuse, except Aaron and the Joker). Evil
frm
EE

Raum
2008-11-05, 06:43 PM
Eh, neither V or Guy Fawkes fit into D&D's alignment code. But then not much does.

SoD
2008-11-05, 06:44 PM
I'd peg him as chaotic neautral (with poor spelling). Yes, he kills lots of people. As do many good people*. He's doing it, from his point of view, for the greater good. However, his tactics, etc. Are in no way a 'good' thing. I'd wish to argue the good intention canceling out the evil deeds.

*In a DnD world.

FMArthur
2008-11-05, 06:45 PM
My fathers birthday it allows me not.

Would you care to form this into a sentence?

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 06:45 PM
Eh, neither V or Guy Fawkes fit into D&D's alignment code. But then not much does.

i disagree, (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html) almost anybody can fit within the alignment system, because good and evil isn't wrong and right
from
EE
SoD
it isn't that he kills people, its that he kills innocent people, which is murder

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 06:48 PM
He should have killed everyone who thinks they need to post copy their name to the bottom of every one of their posts.

He's chaotic neutral. You could actually make a case for true neutral.

The political system in his state of residence has no mechanism for changing it so while he is breaking the law it could be argued that he wasn't actively promoting the disillusionment of all governments or laws. As for murder being evil, it is. But homicide and assassination aren't necessarily murder. V was fighting a war by the only means possible. As for him killing innocents, there are no innocents in an idealogical war or a civil war. In regards to him not planning a replacement means of government, it's not a task he is suited for and he knows it. Planning or attempting to take over himself would just be hubris.

Fan
2008-11-05, 06:50 PM
Would you care to form this into a sentence?
My fathers birthday does not allow me to forget about the 5th of november.
I was trying to make it rhyme aat least some what with the orignal thing.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 06:56 PM
He should have killed everyone who thinks they need to post copy their name to the bottom of every one of their posts.

I don't know, that seems far to petty.


He's chaotic neutral. You could actually make a case for true neutral.

Not with his track record of murder, torture, terrorism, ect ect



The political system in his state of residence has no mechanism for changing it so while he is breaking the law it could be argued that he wasn't actively promoting the disillusionment of all governments or laws. As for murder being evil, it is. But homicide and assassination aren't necessarily murder. V was fighting a war by the only means possible. As for him killing innocents, there are no innocents in an idealogical war or a civil war. In regards to him not planning a replacement means of government, it's not a task he is suited for and he knows it. Planning or attempting to take over himself would just be hubris.
1) Murder is certainly evil, particularly when combined with torture, lack of mercy and assassination, more than enough to make him evil
2) And yes, there are always innocents. People who have committed no crime other than doing their job, out of fear or hope for stability don't deserve death. And every war is an ideological war in some way
3) I wouldn't say trying to make a stable government that isn't fascist is a sign of hubris. V's ideal of anarchy only leads to chaos and pain for millions of innocent people, not good
from
EE

Raum
2008-11-05, 07:01 PM
i disagree, (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html) almost anybody can fit within the alignment system, because good and evil isn't wrong and rightPhilosophers have argued that and similar questions for millennia. Oddly none of the modern philosophers have taken up D&D's 'alignment system' as a serious theory. :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 07:03 PM
Philosophers have argued that and similar questions for millennia. Oddly none of the modern philosophers have taken up D&D's 'alignment system' as a serious theory. :smallwink:

we aren't talking about the real validity of right and wrong in real life, we are defining good and evil with the D&D system, an absolute morality world
from
EE

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 07:04 PM
I don't know, that seems far to petty.
No, it would be one of the greatest services ever rendered to mankind.


Not with his track record of murder, torture, terrorism, ect ect
Murder is very specific. Soldiers killing other soldiers don't commit murder. Terrorism is just what the stronger parties name for asymmetric and guerilla warfare. Torture is evil but not enough so to make V automatically evil.


1) Murder is certainly evil, particularly when combined with torture, lack of mercy and assassination, more than enough to make him evil
Define murder. Killing someone is not automatically murdering them. A lack of mercy does not make one evil, it makes one not good. Assassination is not necessarily evil either.

2) And yes, there are always innocents. People who have committed no crime other than doing their job, out of fear or hope for stability don't deserve death. And every war is an ideological war in some way
No, a civil war has no innocent. You either support the government or those who are rebelling against the government. As for every war being ideological in nature, wrong. Very few wars are ideological in nature, most are economic in nature.

3) I wouldn't say trying to make a stable government that isn't fascist is a sign of hubris. V's ideal of anarchy only leads to chaos and pain for millions of innocent people, not good

The thing is that V is not suited too making a stable government. He knows that he is not suited to that role. His attempting to make a stable government when he lacks the ability to do so is just an invitation for even more anarchy and unrest.

Raum
2008-11-05, 07:09 PM
we aren't talking about the real validity of right and wrong in real life, we are defining good and evil with the D&D system, an absolute morality worldIn that case, how can you apply it to something created outside the framework of a D&D system? In a world without an absolute morality? The movie intentionally leaves V's motivations and morality ambiguous. The author wants to raise questions in his audience's mind.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 07:10 PM
I'd peg him as chaotic neautral (with poor spelling). Yes, he kills lots of people. As do many good people*. He's doing it, from his point of view, for the greater good. However, his tactics, etc. Are in no way a 'good' thing. I'd wish to argue the good intention canceling out the evil deeds.

*In a DnD world.

Argh, not this again. *headdesk*

Good-aligned adventurers often kill a lot of sentient beings, yeah. Bandits, raiders, murderers, plotting evil sorcerers, and other people who perform evil deeds, kill others (or want to, but get thwarted) and deserve to get killed. I have no words for someone who sees no difference between that and killing innocents to create a world you consider better.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 07:12 PM
No, it would be one of the greatest services ever rendered to mankind.

yes, because i'm sure reading two words must cause you so much mental pain and aguish:smallamused:


[quote]Not with his track record of murder, torture, terrorism, ect ect [/quote[
Murder is very specific. Soldiers killing other soldiers don't commit murder. Terrorism is just what the stronger parties name for asymmetric and guerilla warfare. Torture is evil but not enough so to make V automatically evil.

Not within D&D context. A solider who shoots a civilian at his commander's orders is still committing evil act
Terrorism is actually a bit more specific, that would be harming innocents to serve your purpose and ideal, which V certainly does. I mean the people killed in the tower who were killed were only doing their job, that is murder



Define murder. Killing someone is not automatically murdering them. A lack of mercy does not make one evil, it makes one not good. Assassination is not necessarily evil either.
Within D&D, any killing that isn't justified (by D&D definition) is murder and thus evil. Justified killing is killing somebody who is attacking you with a gun, or about to shoot a child, but killing somebody who already is helpess or hasn't done anything is still murder



No, a civil war has no innocent. You either support the government or those who are rebelling against the government. As for every war being ideological in nature, wrong. Very few wars are ideological in nature, most are economic in nature.
1a) American Civil war, the Union workers in the industrial factories to the north. Innocents, not that anybody really killed them
1b) doing your job or
2) There are idealists in every conflict, which is often to used as the justification



The thing is that V is not suited too making a stable government. He knows that he is not suited to that role. His attempting to make a stable government when he lacks the ability to do so is just an invitation for even more anarchy and unrest.
He is a lone anarchist who is tearing down the government. If he isn't the one suitable to lead doesn't excuse him for not trying to find somebody who is, or some group that could, but instead he just destroys and reveals in the chaos that comes from that
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 07:14 PM
Argh, not this again. *headdesk*

Good-aligned adventurers often kill a lot of sentient beings, yeah. Bandits, raiders, murderers, plotting evil sorcerers, and other people who perform evil deeds, kill others (or want to, but get thwarted) and deserve to get killed. I have no words for someone who sees no difference between that and killing innocents to create a world you consider better.

thank you. If killing innocents is a justification and doesn't make you evil, then who in D&D is evil?


In that case, how can you apply it to something created outside the framework of a D&D system? In a world without an absolute morality? The movie intentionally leaves V's motivations and morality ambiguous. The author wants to raise questions in his audience's mind.
Because we are fitting his actions within the D&D morality system. His motivations aren't relevant, as his actions are still evil, at least within teh D&d definition
from
EE

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 07:22 PM
yes, because i'm sure reading two words must cause you so much mental pain and aguish:smallamused:
Yes, it does.


Not within D&D context. A solider who shoots a civilian at his commander's orders is still committing evil act
Define a civilian. It's at the root of this whole debate. I maintain that no one V killed was an innocent or a civilian, you maintain that they were. If V killed innocents and civilians then he was committing evil acts but if they weren't innocents or civilians then he wasn't committing evil acts.


Terrorism is actually a bit more specific, that would be harming innocents to serve your purpose and ideal, which V certainly does. I mean the people killed in the tower who were killed were only doing their job, that is murder
No. Only doing your job does not make you an innocent. That has been maintained for a long time.


Within D&D, any killing that isn't justified (by D&D definition) is murder and thus evil. Justified killing is killing somebody who is attacking you with a gun, or about to shoot a child, but killing somebody who already is helpess or hasn't done anything is still murder
Killing an enemy solider in a war is never murder. Neither is destroying enemy war materials. And humans are enemy war materials. Every person in the TV station is actively supporting the governments policies and activities.


1a) American Civil war, the Union workers in the industrial factories to the north. Innocents, not that anybody really killed them
They weren't innocents and were in fact valid targets if the south had managed to reach them. Just like the factory workers and factories in the south were valid targets.

1b) doing your job or
Is not a defense.

2) There are idealists in every conflict, which is often to used as the justification
I never said that their weren't idealists in every conflict, I said that they were fought because of economics. That doesn't mean that ideology isn't used for propaganda and to get people to be willing to die but it isn't the nature of the war.



He is a lone anarchist who is tearing down the government. If he isn't the one suitable to lead doesn't excuse him for not trying to find somebody who is, or some group that could, but instead he just destroys and reveals in the chaos that comes from that
Um yes it does. It's not his job to replace the government.

Selrahc
2008-11-05, 07:24 PM
yes, because i'm sure reading two words must cause you so much mental pain and aguish :smallamused:

Yeah, and this must only be the sixth thread derailed by the stupid things, so who cares if hundreds of people are annoyed by it :smallsigh:


I'd peg V as chaotic neutral. He is committing horrible deeds for a greater good, but more importantly, he isn't doing it to be self serving. He has integrity. He isn't sadistic.

SilentNight
2008-11-05, 07:24 PM
I don't know, that seems far to petty.

Not with his track record of murder, torture, terrorism, ect ect


1) Murder is certainly evil, particularly when combined with torture, lack of mercy and assassination, more than enough to make him evil
2) And yes, there are always innocents. People who have committed no crime other than doing their job, out of fear or hope for stability don't deserve death. And every war is an ideological war in some way
3) I wouldn't say trying to make a stable government that isn't fascist is a sign of hubris. V's ideal of anarchy only leads to chaos and pain for millions of innocent people, not good
from
EE
First let me just say that I have only seen the movie.

True neutral and CN are actually valid points. CN characters are most of the time described as insane with no moral values (which V admittedly has, they're just incredibly warped.) V was literally driven crazy by his experience at Lark Hill. He has no memory past that event and just wants to destroy the government. I'd say this fits CN quite nicely. Also, inevitables are true neutral. As machines they lack mercy or morals as well. They are driven by a single task to right a wrong, nothing more.
I do agree though that even if V thinks he is doing this for the greater good he is definitely not good. No chance.

snoopy13a
2008-11-05, 07:33 PM
. CN characters are most of the time described as insane with no moral values

I always thought of CN characters as the free spirit type. That guy you know whose apartment is a mess, is underemployed and smokes pot on a regular basis? Chances are that he's CN.

I'd put a stereotypical dnd bard as chaotic. They travel from town to town aimlessly playing music for money. They don't have any roots or allegiance to anyone but love traveling the open road and moving from place to place. If they help out others along the way then they'd be chaotic good. If they exploit others when they can, they are chaotic evil. If they respect others but don't go out of their way to help anyone, they are chaotic neutral.

Other potential chaotic neutral types would be sailors, circus folk, hobos, and rock stars :smalltongue:

SilentNight
2008-11-05, 07:35 PM
I always thought of CN characters as the free spirit type. That guy you know whose apartment is a mess, is underemployed and smokes pot on a regular basis? Chances are that he's CN.

I'd put a stereotypical dnd bard as chaotic. They travel from town to town aimlessly playing music for money. They don't have any roots or allegiance to anyone but love traveling the open road and moving from place to place. If they help out others along the way then they'd be chaotic good. If they exploit others when they can, they are chaotic evil. If they respect others but don't go out of their way to help anyone, they are chaotic neutral.

Other potential chaotic neutral types would be sailors, circus folk, hobos, and rock stars :smalltongue:

That's how I viewed them too. I forget where it was that I read that they were the majority of insane characters but it makes sense. I'm not saying all CN people are insane, I'm saying your average insane person is likely to be CN or CE.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 07:39 PM
Yes, it does.

Dear lord, the horror you must endure


Define a civilian. It's at the root of this whole debate. I maintain that no one V killed was an innocent or a civilian, you maintain that they were. If V killed innocents and civilians then he was committing evil acts but if they weren't innocents or civilians then he wasn't committing evil acts.


The D&D definition. This isn't a real life dissuasion of moral relativity, its morality within the D&d context, which are absolute. And somebody who is only trying to live their life is certainly an innocent.


No. Only doing your job does not make you an innocent. That has been maintained for a long time.
In D&D not at all (and in real life that isn't true, there are codes against that sort of thing)




Killing an enemy solider in a war is never murder. Neither is destroying enemy war materials. And humans are enemy war materials. Every person in the TV station is actively supporting the governments policies and activities.
1) Yeah it is, if a man is ordered to murder an enemy child, and he does so, by D&D definition he is committing murder. orders isn't a justification, its only shows that the person is morally weak enough (by D&D standards) to not stand up against an obviously evil act.
2) Because they are afraid, or they need the money, or because of the nature of the job. That isn't a crime by D&D activities. Now if they are offered a chance to surrender and don't then attack V, then V is totally justified in killing them, but as it is the've only done their job


They weren't innocents and were in fact valid targets if the south had managed to reach them. Just like the factory workers and factories in the south were valid targets.
Again, not by D&D definition, they were people who were just trying to do their job. Killing is suppose to e avoided if possible, which certainly isn't the case in that context


Is not a defense.

Because you say so? Within D&D context it certainly ise


I never said that their weren't idealists in every conflict, I said that they were fought because of economics. That doesn't mean that ideology isn't used for propaganda and to get people to be willing to die but it isn't the nature of the war.

If somebody is fighting for their beliefs or ideas, then it is certainly an idealistic war. Economics may play a part, but they don't define it



Um yes it does. It's not his job to replace the government.

If he hopes to be good, its his job to help the people, which he isn't doing just by destroying the government



Yeah, and this must only be the sixth thread derailed by the stupid things, so who cares if hundreds of people are annoyed by it

Try dozens, and plenty have complimented me upon it. I hate your avatar, but i don't whine about it



I'd peg V as chaotic neutral. He is committing horrible deeds for a greater good, but more importantly, he isn't doing it to be self serving. He has integrity. He isn't sadistic.
_________________

Almost all evil people have integrity. Redcloak is certainly evil and he has integrity

Silence, CN doesn't mean you don't have morals, it just means your selfish. that doesn't mean you can commit evil at will
from
EE
edit
Crazy people vary depending upon their insanity.

Copacetic
2008-11-05, 07:48 PM
Dear lord, the horror you must endure


I am going to stab in the thumb with a toothpick until it hits bone. Dear Lord, the Horror you must endure from a toothpick.


ANYWAY


If V was killing for something petty, it would be murder and he would be evil. He is not. He is killing for a greater good, a chance for the British People to be free. Some innocents may suffer for the liberty and happiness of millions.
chaotic Neutral.

Selrahc
2008-11-05, 07:48 PM
Try dozens, and plenty have complimented me upon it. I hate your avatar, but i don't whine about it

Frankly I would change my avatar if I met the same degree of resistance that you meet to your wierd sig thing.

As for "Plenty" of people complimenting you on it, I'm betting the ratio is not favourable. I've seen 4 threads be derailed by this stupid thing, and on those 4 threads I've seen more than 50 people tell you that they dislike it, and 2 give positive comments.

So yeah, you don't have to change it, but you can't deny it is very unpopular. To not change it is to show your complete lack of respect for the community.




Almost all evil people have integrity. Redcloak is certainly evil and he has integrity

Redcloak lacks integrity. Look at start of darkness, he knows that Xykon is a horrible thing for the goblins, but he keeps serving out of fear. If he truly had integrity, he would have done what Right Eye wanted him to do.

Flickerdart
2008-11-05, 07:49 PM
*nonsense*
Read the Chaotic Evil description. Go on. In fact, I shall link it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)


A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Is V motivated by lust for destruction? No. Greed? No. Hate? Ok, maybe, but then most Paladins hate the Goblins the slaughter, too.

Is V arbitrarily violent, and vicious? If you've ever seen the movie, you'd have seen his rather well thought out plans that minimize casualties to who he knows are innocent citizens. That also rules out the "his plans are haphazard" clause: V may not be a chessmaster, but he is great at planning and manipulation. He is neither out for himself or to spread evil and chaos, and so both cases the description gives are invalidated.

V is very clearly NOT Chaotic Evil. I wouldn't even say he's CN, because Chaotic Neutral cares nothing for the greater good, which V attempts to serve as best he can.

And Selrahc, your avatar is awesome. Don't listen to EE.

Dairun Cates
2008-11-05, 07:54 PM
Murder is still murder. If saying its for the Greater good keeps you from being evil, then nobody would be evil (because honestly, everybody uses that excuse, except Aaron and the Joker). Evil
frm
EE

I'm pretty sure my players would disagree with you on that one after the number of just plain evil b******* I've sent after them.

True Evil doesn't need excuses to be Evil. Interesting villains are possible without the whole troubled backstory or "understandable evil" scenario.

Also, by this logic, a WHOLE lot of people in a whole lot of governments are evil. It's called Black Ops.

And yes, killing Bad guys is different, but I do like how the good guys get an excuse for shooting first and asking questions later. Killing bandits to protect someone is one thing, but killing a person for just being evil is another.

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 07:54 PM
And Selrahc, your avatar is awesome. Don't listen to EE.

I have to agree, the zombie phelddagrif is awesome... it is a phelddagrif right?

Innis Cabal
2008-11-05, 07:54 PM
1. There are no innocents.
2. He has a code of conduct. He sure does. That makes him, you gused it. Lawful
3. He kills people, he kills people with no remorse or care what so ever. Does that make him evil? No. As someone said here, anyone can fit into the alignment system...is wrong. He is neutral.

Lawful Neutral

From
Give it a rest people, your just as annoying

SilentNight
2008-11-05, 08:00 PM
1. There are no innocents.
2. He has a code of conduct. He sure does. That makes him, you gused it. Lawful
3. He kills people, he kills people with no remorse or care what so ever. Does that make him evil? No. As someone said here, anyone can fit into the alignment system...is wrong. He is neutral.

Lawful Neutral

From
Give it a rest people, your just as annoying
I'm inclined to agree on all these points. Case dismissed.

Flickerdart
2008-11-05, 08:01 PM
1. There are no innocents.
2. He has a code of conduct. He sure does. That makes him, you gused it. Lawful
3. He kills people, he kills people with no remorse or care what so ever. Does that make him evil? No. As someone said here, anyone can fit into the alignment system...is wrong. He is neutral.

Lawful Neutral

From
Give it a rest people, your just as annoying
So what if he has a code? A Lawful character would fight the power from within, rising through the ranks and passing reform. Chaotic, though, is fine with melting faces all the way.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 08:04 PM
Dear lord, the horror you must endure
Yes, or people could just stop posting their names at the end of their posts. Saving the Giant in bandwidth, themselves time, and not annoying others.


The D&D definition. This isn't a real life dissuasion of moral relativity, its morality within the D&d context, which are absolute. And somebody who is only trying to live their life is certainly an innocent.
No they aren't. If you are working for the government during a civil war then you are actively supporting and furthering the governments policies. You are not innocent of the crimes committed by the government.


In D&D not at all (and in real life that isn't true, there are codes against that sort of thing)
In real life following orders is never a defense. And every nation still maintains that the infrastructure used to support the war effort is a valid military target, irregardless of it's location or who occupies it. Every nation also maintains that no treaty limits their ability to act when fighting a civil war.


1) Yeah it is, if a man is ordered to murder an enemy child, and he does so, by D&D definition he is committing murder. orders isn't a justification, its only shows that the person is morally weak enough (by D&D standards) to not stand up against an obviously evil act.
You are the one maintaining that orders are a justification, I've maintained the exact opposite this entire time. And an enemy child is only an innocent by virtue of being unable to choose a side, if the child actively supports one side then they have ceased to be an innocent. Likewise, the death of a child that is killed in an attack on military infrastructure is on the hands of the owner of the infrastructure, not the attacker. The attacker is under no obligation to preserve the lives of human shields.

2) Because they are afraid, or they need the money, or because of the nature of the job. That isn't a crime by D&D activities. Now if they are offered a chance to surrender and don't then attack V, then V is totally justified in killing them, but as it is the've only done their job
Fear or a need for money does not make one an innocent. Why you are supporting one side in a conflict is not relevant, all that is relevant is that you are providing aid to one side. And once you aid one side you have ceased to be an innocent or a civilian and have become military infrastructure.


Again, not by D&D definition, they were people who were just trying to do their job. Killing is suppose to e avoided if possible, which certainly isn't the case in that context
If they work for the government then by definition they are suppling aid to one side in a civil war. Once you supply aid, no matter the reason, you have ceased to be an innocent and are now a valid target.


Because you say so? Within D&D context it certainly is
No it isn't. Government employees are by definition valid military targets in a civil war. They aren't innocents because they have chosen to actively aid one side in the conflict.


If somebody is fighting for their beliefs or ideas, then it is certainly an idealistic war. Economics may play a part, but they don't define it
Why the solider on the ground fights is irrelevant. Why the nation fights and why a government chooses to attack are relevant. WW2 was not an idealogical war. Germany started the war for economic reasons, the allies got in the war because they were attacked and were fighting for survival.


If he hopes to be good, its his job to help the people, which he isn't doing just by destroying the government
I never said he was good. I said he wasn't evil. And destroying the government is helping the people.

Optimystik
2008-11-05, 08:07 PM
Easy on the flaming Tippy, you're going to get this locked.

On topic, killing innocents is evil no matter what your grand vision is. To the person who said there are no innocents, I point you to the "imminent harm" clause built into all murder statutes.

I peg V as LE due to his code.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 08:12 PM
Easy on the flaming Tippy, you're going to get this locked.
I haven't flamed anybody.


On topic, killing innocents is evil no matter what your grand vision is. To the person who said there are no innocents, I point you to the "imminent harm" clause built into all murder statutes.

I peg V as LE due to his code.

Why are you using the civilian peace time laws when discussing someone fighting a civil war during a time of declared martial law?

Doomsy
2008-11-05, 08:18 PM
When Watchmen shows up on theaters these threads are gonna spread like a nasty viral infection.

I vote 4E: Unaligned due to being Too Damn Complex For A Pigenholing System.

Barring that, Lawful Neutral because you can rationalize anything given enough time and a perspective to stand on, and I feel like it would be a fun thought exercise.

I think it is because he follows a CODE which makes him LAWFUL even if the CODE tells him to KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE and BLOW UP LANDMARKS. Following a code of course makes you lawful, unless it is the pirates code, because pirates are always chaotic.

And their code is more of a guideline anyway.

And he is NEUTRAL because he KILLS A LOT OF PEOPLE and BLOWS UP LANDMARKS while fighting a brutal fascist regime. I am going to say neutral because killing is bad wrong and a true good character would have just set themselves on fire as a protest instead of snapping necks.

So he is a Lawful Neutral terrorist. And yes, he is a terrorist in the legal definition: He is using terror as a weapon and deliberately targeting non-military facilities and personnel.

Oh, and he kidnaps a chick and basically mind-screws her nine ways from Sunday, but he has a CODE and it was ACCORDING TO IT so it is completely LAWFUL. Despite being pretty damn heinous. And technically a form of brainwashing similar to what his enemies do, but that is okay because he was doing it for his cause. Which is different from their cause and better because he is the protagonist, duh.

Tomorrow: I will prove Captain Planet is chaotic evil.

And yes. This is all pretty much in complete good humor.

Ninja edit: Wow. I posted this without checking the other replies and came to pretty much the same conclusion. Sweet.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-11-05, 08:40 PM
I would peg V as some sort of neutral. He has a noble purpose (the overthrow of an evil government) but uses ignoble means to accomplish his end. Thus: neutrality.

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 08:42 PM
3e's alignment system is really too simple for something like this. I think you need a third axis, like... Noble vs. Corrupt to measure intent. Maybe even having a few different points based on time.

Dairun Cates
2008-11-05, 08:43 PM
Really. I think a lot of the problems here can be summed up in one sentence.

"Alignment without context is pointless."

Here's a fun one for you. I'm thinking of a JRPG from the last 8 years. In the course of the game, the main hero does the following.

Kills his grandma, sucks the life essence out of an entire planet, turn one of his childhood friends in a mindless construct of evil, knowingly uses the souls of dead people to power his super powers, associates with people trying to destroy his planet, attempts to kill every surviving member of the last people who saved the world (and succeeds in at least one case), destroys an entire port city, fires a doom weapon at a vulnerable spot in the planet, subdues all the lord of the elements to do his bidding, and there's even a side-quest where you effectively summon the devil from hell, beat him up, and subdue him so he'll power your weapons up based on how many people you've killed. And this is the GOOD GUY!

The Game and Character:
Tales of Symphonia and Lloyd Irving

I think a certain comparative objectivity is necessary here.

Copacetic
2008-11-05, 08:48 PM
I would peg V as some sort of neutral. He has a noble purpose (the overthrow of an evil government) but uses ignoble means to accomplish his end. Thus: neutrality.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was saying, only Mushroom Ninja here said it better.

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-05, 09:16 PM
Yeah, I side with the CN crowd for reasons already eloquently stated by others.

Although he's more ambiguous in the book - closer to CE

Innis Cabal
2008-11-05, 09:18 PM
So what if he has a code? A Lawful character would fight the power from within, rising through the ranks and passing reform. Chaotic, though, is fine with melting faces all the way.

No. A Lawful Good person would do that.

Lawful dosn't mean you follow -the law-(tm). It means you follow a set guide line, it means you hold yourself to some standard...what ever it is. If that means sacrficing someone at dawn every morning then going to an orgy and drinking the blood of the innocent, thats fine. Your sure to be Lawful Evil but your still lawful because you wake up every day, and you do exactly what you did yesterday, because you -want- to. You have unwavering principles and you stick to them, forever and always and when you don't you feel bad about it.

Chaos dosn't mean your INSANEERTERTGDSFGSD(tm). It means you move on your whims. You really don't have a set stucture of values in your life. One day kicking some guy in the junk is bad, shouldn't do it, no sir. The next day, you go around and curb stomp the people in the junk you didn't yesterday.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 09:24 PM
If V was killing for something petty, it would be murder and he would be evil. He is not. He is killing for a greater good, a chance for the British People to be free. Some innocents may suffer for the liberty and happiness of millions.
chaotic Neutral.

"The suffering of few is worth the prosperity of many" is an archetypical view of a Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) - a LE character who sees himself as LN or LG. "Good intentions and evil means balance each other and result in neutral" is a pile of bull - so if I want to feed an orphanage, and in order to do that kill people and steal their money, I'm neutral?

Draco Dracul
2008-11-05, 09:29 PM
"The suffering of few is worth the prosperity of many" is an archetypical view of a Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) - a LE character who sees himself as LN or LG. "Good intentions and evil means balance each other and result in neutral" is a pile of bull - so if I want to feed an orphanage, and in order to do that kill people and steal their money, I'm neutral?

No, murder beats out helping orphans, but if you robbed people without killing them, I would say you are Neutral. Good and Evil only balance out to Neutral if they are in near equal magnitude.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 09:32 PM
I say CE, too. Just because he's rigidly methodical and calculating doesn't mean V's not chaotic. Think of Joker in the Dark Knight: almost all of us would say he's Chaotic Evil, but he plans far in advance. Now, unlike Joker, V has something higher in mind than his own amusement. V says it clearly enough: he's a servant of Anarchy, and he finds her far sweeter than Justice. He has actively chosen to side with the philosophical forces of 'chaos' as he believes any hierarchical order will inevitably become tyranny.

Remember the thread about the Operative in Serenity? (I briefly trolled it by arguing he was neutral). V strikes me as the chaotic version of the Operative. They're both willing to commit any atrocity, knowing what they are doing is evil, to bring forth what they believe will be a utopia. It just so happens the Operative's idea of utopia is a society of perfect order, while V's is a society of perfect freedom. They're both rotten, murdering bastards and they both pretty much seem to know it.

(Mind, I'm speaking strictly about the comic version. That... other one can go ahead and let itself out the door, thanks.)

EDIT: I'll admit I can see an argument for NE, too. The thing is, Chaotic Evil characters tend to be "lazy," or that is, they strongly prefer to live in the moment and rarely consider consequences. As a matter of course, CE characters will take the most direct and straightforward action to get what they want. V, of course, is the direct opposite---but I still fall on CE since he's one of the rare characters who consciously decides to represent a philosophical force (chaos) and uses evil means to forward it.

Riffington
2008-11-05, 09:34 PM
There are things which may be justified by a "greater good". Murder is never one. CE.

Heck, just look at the way he tortures Evey for his own personal glorification. He doesn't need her specifically for his plans. He can get followers without such a crime. But because he wants her approval, he's willing to kidnap her, beat her, and far worse...

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 09:38 PM
No, murder beats out helping orphans, but if you robbed people without killing them, I would say you are Neutral. Good and Evil only balance out to Neutral if they are in near equal magnitude.

I wouldn't say that. If you calculate your good and evil deeds like an accountant, you're probably evil and fooling yourself into thinking you're not. The AD&D view on druids, for example, which it calls Neutral, is pure NE/CE in my book. An important aspect here, I think, is remorse - if you don't feel it about your strongly evil deeds (murder or torture, not theft), then you're as evil as they are no matter how much good have you done.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-05, 09:42 PM
I wouldn't say that. If you calculate your good and evil deeds like an accountant, you're probably evil and fooling yourself into thinking you're not. The AD&D view on druids, for example, which it calls Neutral, is pure NE/CE in my book. An important aspect here, I think, is remorse - if you don't feel it about your strongly evil deeds (murder or torture, not theft), then you're as evil as they are no matter how much good have you done.

I feel that intention and remorse should only factor into relitive morality, absoulte morality should be about actions and results alone.

Also I would say helping others at the expence of others is Nuetral, Evil is helping youself at the expence of others.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-11-05, 09:47 PM
Before the discussion goes any farther, we really need to do is figure out what means V's goals can justify. Does the fact that he is trying to overcome a thoroughly vile system justify his use of evil means? Can murder or torture ever be justified?

Dairun Cates
2008-11-05, 09:50 PM
There are things which may be justified by a "greater good". Murder is never one. CE.

So, I pose the statement that a Paladin of LG alignment who attacks an Evil character without fulfilling one of the possible four conditions is Evil and should therefore fall instantly.

1. It's in immediate self-defense.
2. It's in the immediate self-defense of another.
3. Said character resisted arrest by a legitimate police authority and the conditions of said resistance are where lives are immediately at a severe risk.
4. It is COMPLETELY accidental.

Because otherwise, it's classified as murder. So if you've ever killed a bad guy because he's been extorting from a town and then killed him when he said no to stopping (if you even asked), you're automatically Evil, correct? Even if you knew the police force was incapable of stopping said person, it is still murder, or even worse, assassination. Said Evil character hasn't killed anyone with his evil acts, and your justification for killing him is "the greater good".

Riffington
2008-11-05, 09:57 PM
Because otherwise, it's classified as murder.

You are conflating the moral concept of murder with one specific legal definition of murder.

Also, self-defense can include defense against theft.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 10:09 PM
I am going to stab in the thumb with a toothpick until it hits bone. Dear Lord, the Horror you must endure from a toothpick.

Is that suppose to be a metaphor?



If V was killing for something petty, it would be murder and he would be evil. He is not. He is killing for a greater good, a chance for the British People to be free. Some innocents may suffer for the liberty and happiness of millions.
chaotic Neutral.
Captain Vidil From Pan's labryrith didn't kill for something petty and he is clearly evil. Hell, most evil people wouldn't kill for something petty and they would still be evil.

And ends justifies the means? the greater good? Who doesn't fight for the greater good. Every tyrant and killer makes that claim, that they harm innocents for the greater good, for the betterment of all, its for the best. Unless your working off an extremely black and white scale of morality, where all the evil people need to murder babies or kick puppies to classify, then the greater good means nothing. All but the most two dimensional or the most honest murder tries to justify their actions, be he a dicatator, a murder or a tyrant.

By that standard, Adam Susan isn't evil. He kills people, tortures people, purges his society of those who he considers "improper", but its all for the greater good, the stability of the society. V doesn't free Britain, he only dooms it to chaos and infighting in the process. Hell for that matter, define greater good? V's is bringing about anarchy, where the strong devour the weak until a new society emerges, is that for the greater good? Norsefire at least gives stability, at the cost of human lives, is taht for teh greater good?
V's on a personal crusade and will kill anyone who gets in his way, is that for the greater good? I mean he bloody tortures one of his best friends just to test her, without her consent in any way, then bloody brain washes her. that is sick

Anyways, this isn't real life morality, this is D&D morality. Within D&D, killing innocents for hte "greater good" is murder (BoED). Killing innocents to hurt evil powers is still evil itself. Murder, torture, and what not will make you evil.

Again, good and evil, does not equal right and wrong
(http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html)


Frankly I would change my avatar if I met the same degree of resistance that you meet to your wierd sig thing.

As for "Plenty" of people complimenting you on it, I'm betting the ratio is not favourable. I've seen 4 threads be derailed by this stupid thing, and on those 4 threads I've seen more than 50 people tell you that they dislike it, and 2 give positive comments.

Why do you feel the need to lie about the numbers? I haven't even had 50 people total comment on the sign off, good or bad, and far more than 4 have complimented it. Through if you thing exaggeration somehow gives you a justification to make claims of what is "right" for the good of the community, than i don't know what to say


So yeah, you don't have to change it, but you can't deny it is very unpopular. To not change it is to show your complete lack of respect for the community.


How is it harming the community? Apart from your own personal artistic tastes. No valid complaint has been presented other than "Well, i personally don't like it, it doesn't suit my tastes" So your basically saying i should change my sign off, because you personally don't like it? Do you force people at work to change their tie if it doesn't suit your tastes? Am i obliged to commit my self to your definition of what is in proper tastes or not? Because last time i checked, neither you, Frigs, Tippy or anybody else can in good faith claim they represent the interests of the total community, or that you have been given the power to identify other's people's personal way of signing of their posts (I am not the only one that does it) as wrong. You have no valid complaint other than "well i don't like it" and i seen no way that somehow empowers you to the point where you can demand that i post to suit your style.



Redcloak lacks integrity. Look at start of darkness, he knows that Xykon is a horrible thing for the goblins, but he keeps serving out of fear. If he truly had integrity, he would have done what Right Eye wanted him to do.
He does whats best for his people, he averts Xykon's murdering nature when he can, and he spares the human prisoners for no reason other than mercy. thats integrity. Hell, considering how flexible the term is, there is a lot of evil people that have that is integrity. Lord Soth is evil, but he is honorable. The mayor from Buffy is evil, but he certainly is a nice person. Aaron is a total bastard, but he still gives up everything he has to save his son, at the cost of his own life (by torture no less). most evil people justify what they do, but within D&D, where morality is absolute, that doesn't excuse them



Is V motivated by lust for destruction? No. Greed? No. Hate? Ok, maybe, but then most Paladins hate the Goblins the slaughter, too.

1) yes he is, he wants to tear down the government, not to bring a new one in but to bring about anarchy
2) No, not greed, but selfishness
3) That is vengeance certainly. That is a crusade based upon his own personal hate as a justification to kill innocents. Paladin's may hate the goblins, but if they kill them solely based upon their hate that is still evil. Revenge is evil (BoVD, hell i mentioned that in the first post)


also if your going by the movie, i said that would be NE. the book version is CE.


Is V arbitrarily violent, and vicious? If you've ever seen the movie, you'd have seen his rather well thought out plans that minimize casualties to who he knows are innocent citizens.
He kills people who get in his way, he blows things up to make a point, hurting people in the process, tortures people to satisfy his own need for vengeance.


That also rules out the "his plans are haphazard" clause: V may not be a chessmaster, but he is great at planning and manipulation. He is neither out for himself or to spread evil and chaos, and so both cases the description gives are invalidated.
Wait a second, he wants to bring about anarchy, with no intention of helping the new civilization rise up. That is certainly spreading chaos.



V is very clearly NOT Chaotic Evil. I wouldn't even say he's CN, because Chaotic Neutral cares nothing for the greater good, which V attempts to serve as best he can.

Movie version would be NE, book CE. And what keeps CN from believing in a cause? He just likes his freedom in doing so.
V is clearly evil due to his actions, and his lack of a structured code eliminates LE. The movie one isn't an anarchist so much as an extreme libertarian, so he would be NE, but the book one actively promotes chaos, so he would be CE


And Selrahc, your avatar is awesome. Don't listen to EE.

And i personally don't like it, but i'm not going to demand he get ride of it, or whine about how i think its an eyesore. He wants his avatar fine, its his account. So why is his justified in attacking my account?



I'm pretty sure my players would disagree with you on that one after the number of just plain evil b******* I've sent after them.

True Evil doesn't need excuses to be Evil. Interesting villains are possible without the whole troubled backstory or "understandable evil" scenario.

Evil by D&D definition (again, good and evil doesn't mean right and wrong) which is an absolute system is a really large category. A villain who is just evil, like Aaron or Iiago aren't very common. most evil people will have a reason, a justification, a logic behind their actions? Why? Because very few people think as themselves as "evil", just doing what needs to be done.


Also, by this logic, a WHOLE lot of people in a whole lot of governments are evil. It's called Black Ops.

yeah, your point?


And yes, killing Bad guys is different, but I do like how the good guys get an excuse for shooting first and asking questions later. Killing bandits to protect someone is one thing, but killing a person for just being evil is another.
__________________

good guys don't get to kill people just for being evil, at least not according to D&D. They can kill them if there if it is justified, but they can't just kill them for being bad



1. There are no innocents.
2. He has a code of conduct. He sure does. That makes him, you gused it. Lawful
3. He kills people, he kills people with no remorse or care what so ever. Does that make him evil? No. As someone said here, anyone can fit into the alignment system...is wrong. He is neutral.

Lawful Neutral
1) Within the context of D&D there are. If a guy who is trying to feed his family helps fix the bad guy machine and is killed for being in the way, he is certainly innocent. He isn't doing any evil acts, nor is he an evil person (not a good one mind you but). he is just trying to do what he think is best
2) In the movie its a very inconsistent code of conduct. In the book, one based upon anarchy. Latter would be CE from teh get go, former is NE because he still has a code, just doesn't always fallow it
3) Well actually you can fit people within the aligniment system, based upon their actions. Torture, murder, ect are evil, so he is evil. i don't see how that makes him any less of a cool character, just evil by the D&D system



From
Give it a rest people, your just as annoying
thanks




Yes, or people could just stop posting their names at the end of their posts. Saving the Giant in bandwidth, themselves time, and not annoying others
Why? because you say so? Am i under some requirement to comply to your personal tastes? I don't recall that. What i do with my time is my business and my choice, not yours, not anybody else's. Two words aren't going to do much to the bandwidth, and if that is your main worry, you waste far more going off on these petty discussions. In short, i am in no way to comply or conform to your personal artistic tastes, nor you to mine.



No they aren't. If you are working for the government during a civil war then you are actively supporting and furthering the governments policies. You are not innocent of the crimes committed by the government.
By D&D standards you are. If i work in the mines for an evil government out of fear of being killed, i'm still innocent. I don't deserve to be killed, at least by D&D standards. If i need to make money in hard ties, so i do the makeup for a propagandist, i'm still innocent, or at least not deserving of death. If i obey the government's orders and don't fight because i'm afraid both for my life and that of my family, i don't deserve to be killed. D&D has a code on taht sort of thing


In real life following orders is never a defense. And every nation still maintains that the infrastructure used to support the war effort is a valid military target, irregardless of it's location or who occupies it. Every nation also maintains that no treaty limits their ability to act when fighting a civil war.

1) In D&D killing civilions and innocents, even under order isn't a defense. Killing enemy solders who are only defending their homelands is valid under certain situations, but not always.
2) Geneva convention, Civil wars have standards too


You are the one maintaining that orders are a justification, I've maintained the exact opposite this entire time.
A justification to not be murdered if your not doing something evil, not a justification to commit evil

And an enemy child is only an innocent by virtue of being unable to choose a side, if the child actively supports one side then they have ceased to be an innocent. Likewise, the death of a child that is killed in an attack on military infrastructure is on the hands of the owner of the infrastructure, not the attacker. The attacker is under no obligation to preserve the lives of human shields.

The attacker is if he hopes to fit within the D&D definition of Good, he is obliged to try to avoid killing when he can. he can kill if he has to, but when he murders people who's only crime is serving their boss (not committing evil deeds while doing so, just doing their job) , then he is certainly evil.
What about the protagonist in the movie? If she hadn't met him the night before, she could have been killed too in his attack



Fear or a need for money does not make one an innocent. Why you are supporting one side in a conflict is not relevant, all that is relevant is that you are providing aid to one side. And once you aid one side you have ceased to be an innocent or a civilian and have become military infrastructure.

If they work for the government then by definition they are suppling aid to one side in a civil war. Once you supply aid, no matter the reason, you have ceased to be an innocent and are now a valid target.
No it isn't. Government employees are by definition valid military targets in a civil war. They aren't innocents because they have chosen to actively aid one side in the conflict.
Under every one of these situations you seem to be trying to justify what he does on a real life morality basis, which isn't the issue here. If you personally agree with V, fine, but that doesn't make him not evil by D&D definition. In D&D, murdering somebody who doesn't present a direct thread, torturing people ever, and harming innocents to make a point is evil

Why the solider on the ground fights is irrelevant. Why the nation fights and why a government chooses to attack are relevant. WW2 was not an idealogical war. Germany started the war for economic reasons, the allies got in the war because they were attacked and were fighting for survival.

Actually WWII was a absurdly ideological war, hell the german's lost because of their sick ideals. Ideals play just a big a part as economics, if in a different sector.



I never said he was good. I said he wasn't evil. And destroying the government is helping the people.
And murder, torture, and what not is evil. And while Norsefire is really evil, anarchy isn't much better


opitimisk

On topic, killing innocents is evil no matter what your grand vision is. To the person who said there are no innocents, I point you to the "imminent harm" clause built into all murder statutes.

I peg V as LE due to his code.
Well, in the movie at least, his code is really inconsistent, so i'm not quite sure if he fits the bill. I'd say NE


I vote 4E: Unaligned due to being Too Damn Complex For A Pigenholing System.

That isn't true, you can fit anything into the 3E morality system, you just have to put your own personal morals aside and realize that D&D's good and evil aren't right and wrong. The entire cast of Song of ice and fire could be put into 3E terms. 4E' unaligned is just a crop out to avoid complexity.


Barring that, Lawful Neutral because you can rationalize anything given enough time and a perspective to stand on, and I feel like it would be a fun thought exercise.

I think it is because he follows a CODE which makes him LAWFUL even if the CODE tells him to KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE and BLOW UP LANDMARKS. Following a code of course makes you lawful, unless it is the pirates code, because pirates are always chaotic.

That isn't true, anybody can have a code, Lawful people just act in a lawful manner generally and are more close to their code.


And he is NEUTRAL because he KILLS A LOT OF PEOPLE and BLOWS UP LANDMARKS while fighting a brutal fascist regime. I am going to say neutral because killing is bad wrong and a true good character would have just set themselves on fire as a protest instead of snapping necks.

Murdering people isn't a justification, even if they serve a fascist regime, they are people too.


Oh, and he kidnaps a chick and basically mind-screws her nine ways from Sunday, but he has a CODE and it was ACCORDING TO IT so it is completely LAWFUL. Despite being pretty damn heinous. And technically a form of brainwashing similar to what his enemies do, but that is okay because he was doing it for his cause. Which is different from their cause and better because he is the protagonist, duh.

and evil


3e's alignment system is really too simple for something like this. I think you need a third axis, like... Noble vs. Corrupt to measure intent. Maybe even having a few different points based on time.
the 3E system is far from simple, just badly presented.



Tengu, totally second what you say,



Piedmon, nice job


There are things which may be justified by a "greater good". Murder is never one. CE.

Heck, just look at the way he tortures Evey for his own personal glorification. He doesn't need her specifically for his plans. He can get followers without such a crime. But because he wants her approval, he's willing to kidnap her, beat her, and far worse...
Yeah, that is bloody sick, its just him using his power for his own use.





So, I pose the statement that a Paladin of LG alignment who attacks an Evil character without fulfilling one of the possible four conditions is Evil and should therefore fall instantly.

1. It's in immediate self-defense.
2. It's in the immediate self-defense of another.
3. Said character resisted arrest by a legitimate police authority and the conditions of said resistance are where lives are immediately at a severe risk.
4. It is COMPLETELY accidental.

Because otherwise, it's classified as murder. So if you've ever killed a bad guy because he's been extorting from a town and then killed him when he said no to stopping (if you even asked), you're automatically Evil, correct? Even if you knew the police force was incapable of stopping said person, it is still murder, or even worse, assassination. Said Evil character hasn't killed anyone with his evil acts, and your justification for killing him is "the greater good".
Book of Exalted Deeds is totally in aggreement with you, except with one extra one
5) You are charmed, or somehow unable to tell the difference due to magical enchantment.

and damn it, i just accidently spoiled a game for myself. through the main villain from the first one fits the bill too
from
EE

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 10:11 PM
I've only seen the movie.

What we need to figure out is how many evil acts make one evil. I think the only thing that can be seen as evil was when he tortured Evey.

V is fighting a war that he was dragged into. This government created a plague and killed mass amounts of people for the purposes of taking over the previous one...through terror. V is fighting terrorists using their own means. Fighting fire with fire.

He isn't out killing innocents just to kill them. He is encouraging the innocent to stand up to their oppressors. So what if an empty building must fall in order to bring about a great change.

Motivations are a powerful tool in deciding someone's alignment. If the old government was still around V wouldn't be crusading against anyone. Trying to dethrone a despot isn't an evil thing. Even if the means are non-good, the deed is.

Dairun Cates
2008-11-05, 10:12 PM
You are conflating the moral concept of murder with one specific legal definition of murder.

Also, self-defense can include defense against theft.

You realize murder is an action right? Having a moral version of murder is like having a moral version of running. The difference here is you're "justifying" murder by changing the name because it's "good". The exact words I believe were "there's no justification for murder". By categorizing DIFFERENT types of murder (both acceptable and unacceptable), you're justifying it.

Furthermore, a number of people would argue that in the previous example it's still incredibly immoral and you've sunken to the level of the bad guys. Ask yourself how many superheroes KILL their supervillains. Just cause you get exp doesn't make it a good act.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 10:13 PM
I've only seen the movie.

What we need to figure out is how many evil acts make one evil. I think the only thing that can be seen as evil was when he tortured Evey.

V is fighting a war that he was dragged into. This government created a plague and killed mass amounts of people for the purposes of taking over the previous one...through terror. V is fighting terrorists using their own means. Fighting fire with fire.

He isn't out killing innocents just to kill them. He is encouraging the innocent to stand up to their oppressors. So what if an empty building must fall in order to bring about a great change.

Motivations are a powerful tool in deciding someone's alignment. If the old government was still around V wouldn't be crusading against anyone. Trying to dethrone a despot isn't an evil thing. Even if the means are non-good, the deed is.

Evil actions out weight good actions. I admit V didn't start this fight, but in the method he uses, he shows himself to be little better
from
EE

Flickerdart
2008-11-05, 10:23 PM
Ye gods, EE, if you want to make more quotes than you have reply, spoiler them by parts. This is a thread, not the CN Tower.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-05, 10:26 PM
You realize murder is an action right? Having a moral version of murder is like having a moral version of running. The difference here is you're "justifying" murder by changing the name because it's "good". The exact words I believe were "there's no justification for murder". By categorizing DIFFERENT types of murder (both acceptable and unacceptable), you're justifying it.

Furthermore, a number of people would argue that in the previous example it's still incredibly immoral and you've sunken to the level of the bad guys. Ask yourself how many superheroes KILL their supervillains. Just cause you get exp doesn't make it a good act.
All murder is homicide, not all homicide is murder.

A solider killing an enemy solider is not a murder. A state executing a convicted criminal is not committing murder. A man killing his attacker is not committing murder.

V is fighting a civil war. He is a solider in said war. The killing of those who provide material support to the enemy is no different from the killing of those who take up arms for the enemy, and the death of anyone killed in the act of neutralizing a valid military target (which includes military infrastructure) is likewise not murder, even if one can reasonably foresee the deaths occurring.

Show me a scene were V just kills a random person on the street, that would be murder. But no deaths that occurred in the destruction of the TV station or the train station are acts of murder. Neither are the assassinations committed by V (valid targets).

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 10:32 PM
Well, lets think of this completely in D&D terms.

Say there's a lich ruling a kingdom through terror. He lets/encourages his guards and armies to fall to their lesser vices.

How would a paladin go about stopping this without killing anyone? Would his kills be justified enough(since he is fighting evil) to keep him LG?

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 10:36 PM
Think about what you're saying there. Guards and armies. Soldiers who are serving under arms and understand the possibility they may be killed.

If the Lich employs a harmless Commoner 1 as his Janitor and the Paladin runs him through to get to the privy chambers, then yes he should fall. I wouldn't change his alignment to evil for that single action, but Paladins are supposed to be a cut above just being Lawful Good--they are required to find a better way.

V didn't just do it once though. He repeatedly uses methods that endanger--in fact, guarantee--civilian casualties. He's evil.

He basically admits it when he's dying and explains to Evey why his plan involved his own death. He knows a monster like himself isn't fit to live in the utopia he wanted to create.

Again, compare to the Operative, who only a very few people would argue isn't evil.

EDIT:

Almost forgot, the Police Inspector's wife. V kills her husband, who despite being an abusive bastard she had an extremely deep attachment to. He basically manipulates this woman into having a nervous breakdown, resulting in her assassinating the Leader. Her only 'crime' was being married to a henchman of the regime and just happening to be useful to V. And even if we're just talking about the movie, what he does to Evey is, objectively, brainwashing--mindrape, as we usually say on the boards. That alone would tilt him strongly towards evil, combined with his other actions V is a monster.

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 10:42 PM
I must need to watch the movie again...I don't remember V killing any innocents.

I remember him killing those trying to rape Evey, those trying to kill him, and those who share responsibility to everything that led up to the beginning of the movie.

And torturing Evey, which was evil.

Sure he uses terror, but not on many innocents. He uses terror to embolden the masses, the innocents.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 10:45 PM
Well, lets think of this completely in D&D terms.

Say there's a lich ruling a kingdom through terror. He lets/encourages his guards and armies to fall to their lesser vices.

How would a paladin go about stopping this without killing anyone? Would his kills be justified enough(since he is fighting evil) to keep him LG?

his guards? Yeah, he can kill them as long as they don't surrender. he can raise a revolution, or attack directly, but he can't kill the people of the nation in the process
from
EE

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 10:46 PM
his guards? Yeah, he can kill them as long as they don't surrender. he can raise a revolution, or attack directly, but he can't kill the people of the nation in the process
from
EE

Isn't that what V did? How is it not evil for a paladin but evil for V?

Innis Cabal
2008-11-05, 10:47 PM
Why......? Alignment isn't black and white. It never has been. It should never be. The Paladin is the evil invader to the lich and his guards. Morality is never easy, and its always open to opinion. There is no such word as "true evil" only the phrase "Its evil to me"

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 10:49 PM
Why......? Alignment isn't black and white. It never has been. It should never be. The Paladin is the evil invader to the lich and his guards. Morality is never easy, and its always open to opinion. There is no such word as "true evil" only the phrase "Its evil to me"

While i agree morality isn't black and white, as in D&D good and evil are not the same as right and wrong, the paladin is required to fight tyranny (which i assume the lich is doing) just not to become a monster in the process
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-11-05, 10:50 PM
Why......? Alignment isn't black and white. It never has been. It should never be. The Paladin is the evil invader to the lich and his guards. Morality is never easy, and its always open to opinion. There is no such word as "true evil" only the phrase "Its evil to me"

In D&D, as EE so fequently points out, morality is absoulte so true evil does exist.

Edit: Ninja'd by the man himself.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 10:51 PM
Think about it. Was every person in that TV studio an evil, fully conscientious collaborator with the regime? The anchorwoman? The guys in the sound studio? The security guard? The janitor? The coffee guy, working for college credit?

How about the bombing of Westminster---a huge explosion like that is going to seriously injure or kill anybody who just happened to be driving down the street at the wrong time.

When V mails out all those Guy Fawkes masks, remember the scene where the guy sticks up a convenience store? He was enabling incidents like that all over London.

Honestly, the movie version of V is a teddy bear compared to the comic version, but even he's a pretty ambiguous figure and certainly not a conventional hero. But yeah, he's a democratic puss and nothing like the actual, capital-A Anarchist V from the comic.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 10:52 PM
In D&D, as EE so fequently points out, morality is absoulte so true evil does exist.

yes, and its name is FATAl....i mean Demons, sorry

Through it is worth noting that good and evil are not right and wrong (see sig, alignment part one)
from
EE
edit
Sweet i'm a ninja. Oh and Piedman, you might want to edit your language out, just a helpful hint.

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 10:56 PM
Think about it. Was every person in that TV studio an evil, fully conscientious collaborator with the regime? The anchorwoman? The guys in the sound studio? The security guard? The janitor? The coffee guy, working for college credit?

Like I said, I need to re-watch the movie but I don't remember him killing anyone in the studio.


How about the bombing of Westminster---a huge explosion like that is going to seriously injure or kill anybody who just happened to be driving down the street at the wrong time.

You seem to forget about the curfew. Anyone who was driving down the street would have happened to be in the process of being beaten up by the Fingermen.


When V mails out all those Guy Fawkes masks, remember the scene where the guy sticks up a convenience store? He was enabling incidents like that all over London.

But V didn't rob the store so he isn't responsible for that action...all he did was mail a mask. Not Evil.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 10:57 PM
I meant 'democratic' as in, V in the movie is fighting to restore democracy like a true-blue, red-blooded Hollywood hero (hence small-d). The one in the comic is explicitly against any form of government controlling people, even one supposedly "by the people."

And it's mon. >_>

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 11:01 PM
Like I said, I need to re-watch the movie but I don't remember him killing anyone in the studio.

I admit I've forgotten most of the movie too. In the reeeaaal version[/truefan] they explicitly say civilians died in the TV tower.




You seem to forget about the curfew. Anyone who was driving down the street would have happened to be in the process of being beaten up by the Fingermen.

Alright, fair point there. Doesn't detract from his other actions, though.




But V didn't rob the store so he isn't responsible for that action...all he did was mail a mask. Not Evil.

V knew that when he was encouraging popular revolt, people were going to take it as an excuse to loot, pillage and get away with whatever they could. He was counting on it. He needed to discredit the government, part of that was proving they were unable to do what they promised (uphold the law). It makes more sense in the comic, where he outright says he rejects Justice for Freedom, but it makes the movie version look like a massive hypocrite (treating collateral damage as "acceptable.")

Yahzi
2008-11-05, 11:17 PM
Anyways, i'd peg the book version as Chaotic Evil
I agree. Well, maybe Chaotic Stupid... :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2008-11-05, 11:18 PM
Dear farking god I'm tired of these threads. Seriously, EE, why do you keep making them?

Look, by YOUR definition, V is probably evil. Fine. But I postulate that by your definition EVERY "hero" who by the necessity of circumstance is forced to take life (which would be all of them) is evil. Which of these heroes is "good" by your standards: Aragorn, The Bride, Neo, Robin Hood, Galahad, Achillies, King Arthur, James Bond, Elric, Luke Skywalker. I'm willing to give good money that you'll call every one of them neutral or evil, because every single one of them took innocent lives in favor of a greater ideal.

If EVERYONE is evil, then what's the point of even having good? Seriously, nobody, short of honest-to-god divine beings, is capable of meeting your criteria. Therefore, what's the point of even having good is nobody can manage it?

You have impossible standards for your heroes. More power to you if it makes you happy. But if you have to make threads to talk about how you're clearly the only person on the internet with moral standards, then make them somewhere else.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 11:31 PM
Dear farking god I'm tired of these threads. Seriously, EE, why do you keep making them?

Because i enjoy them. I don't actually recall the rule requreing you to read something you don't like, gods i avoid 4HK threads



Look, by YOUR definition, V is probably evil. Fine. But I postulate that by your definition EVERY "hero" who by the necessity of circumstance is forced to take life (which would be all of them) is evil. Which of these heroes is "good" by your standards: Aragorn, The Bride, Neo, Robin Hood, Galahad, Achillies, King Arthur, James Bond, Elric, Luke Skywalker. I'm willing to give good money that you'll call every one of them neutral or evil, because every single one of them took innocent lives in favor of a greater ideal.
My ideals don't match with those with D&D. By the D&D standard, yes, yes they would all be evil. Wait not quite. Aragon commits no evil actsi nthe book, neither does Galahad (in most myths), and Edward is clearly NG, as he actively avoids killing. The Bride, Achillies, and James Bond are bloody psychotics, King Author's imperfect nature is a theme in most myths. But Aragon, Elric, most version of Galahad, and at least the movie version of Luke don't kill any innocents. So not everybody, just the ones that can't hold themselves to the D&D code


If EVERYONE is evil, then what's the point of even having good? Seriously, nobody, short of honest-to-god divine beings, is capable of meeting your criteria. Therefore, what's the point of even having good is nobody can manage it?You have impossible standards for your heroes. More power to you if it makes you happy. But if you have to make threads to talk about how you're clearly the only person on the internet with moral standards, then make them somewhere else.
The point of good is high standards, and its not my standards, its D&D. That isn't even a high standard, its a request of basic human decency in most cases, like not killing those who don't deserve it. Every Hobbit character in LOTRS, Roy, Kenshin, those are all exampels of people who can do it



from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-11-05, 11:44 PM
Author's imperfect nature is a theme in most myths.



from
EE

While Arthur's imperfections are a major theme, I think one of his major flaws is his devotion to his laws and rules and in most versions of the myths Camelot falls because Arthur is unwilling to defame two people he dearly loves and later because he judges those two people in the courts rather then settle the matter privately. If anything two of Arthur's major flaws are being too good and too lawful. While he is not perfect I think calling Arthur Nuetral or Evil is a strech.

EvilElitest
2008-11-05, 11:45 PM
While Arthur's imperfections are a major theme, I think one of his major flaws is his devotion to his laws and rules and in most versions of the myths Camelot falls because Arthur is unwilling to defame two people he dearly loves and later because he judges those two people in the courts rather then settle the matter privately. If anything two of Arthur's major flaws are being too good and too lawful. While he is not perfect I think calling Arthur Nuetral or Evil is a strech.

meh, depends upon the myth. the "typical" version i'd peg as LN, the more idealized verions as LG
from
EE

Innis Cabal
2008-11-05, 11:47 PM
In D&D, as EE so fequently points out, morality is absoulte so true evil does exist.

Edit: Ninja'd by the man himself.

Only if you let it. Its not up to what the books say. Its up to what you the DM say.

If you want to play in a world thats not realistic, thats fine, but it shows the flaw's of the actual alignment system.

Humans are all vile rotten creatures. Period. Good acts are done sure, but they arn't good acts to everyone. Just like awful acts arnt awful to everyone.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-05, 11:48 PM
meh, depends upon the myth. the "typical" version i'd peg as LN, the more idealized verions as LG
from
EE

I think the newer the version the more LG he is as he is always the ideal of the age in which he is written.

Gray Jester
2008-11-05, 11:59 PM
but Aragon, Elric, most version of Galahad, and at least the movie version of Luke don't kill any innocents. So not everybody, just the ones that can't hold themselves to the D&D code

Disagree on Luke. What about all those on Jabba's skiff? Sure, some were attacking him, but it wasn't all of them. Those in charge of the music, for instance, probably weren't evil, but I don't see them escaping Luke's blowing up of the skiff. It's also possible to argue that all those Stormtroopers that were killed at various points by the rebellion were just trying to get by under the Empire.


As far as V, I would say he's chaotic good, in the movie, and chaotic neutral, in the book. In the movie, although he was somewhat motivated by revenge, he's portrayed as a freedom fighter and also as meticulous in avoiding killing innocents. (On the other hand, there's the messy deal with the collateral when he sends out the masks, so I think he makes mistakes.) However, as a rule, he only kills those who in some way or another deserve it, and those who's deaths will further his goal of toppling the LE government. I don't see him as any different from Robin Hood or the like, and iirc Robin Hood is often portrayed as a sort of quintessential CG character.
In the book, he's more morally ambiguous (Read it, it's better then the movie), and his support for anarchy is kind of morally grey. Also, he fits in well with the idea of resenting authority, and I see him as more a chaotic character that is inclined towards a neutral philosophy. (Anarchy isn't inherently bad, if you ask me.)

On the other hand, I can see how it would be debateable, as multiple times he causes acts that either endanger or end in the deaths of innocents, and he shows no remorse. He also shows little value for redemption, not allowing another's wishing for forgiveness to stay his hand form killing her.

Dervag
2008-11-06, 12:05 AM
I would argue that V is very Chaotic with respect to law and chaos. He opposes the very idea of organized government and pursues a private campaign of revenge (literally, a vendetta) against the state. Which is not to say he doesn't have good reasons for doing so, but the fact remains that he does.

Comic book V is if anything even more chaotic than movie V, and is far more indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Neither portrayal of V has any real interest in keeping society organized or stable after the collapse of the fascist government.
____________

As for Good and Evil, that's harder to judge.

I would say that V is not actively evil, though he definitely commits evil acts. On the other hand, I would say that he is not actively good, though he definitely commits at least some good acts.

His main objective (revenge against some very bad people who wronged him terribly) is morally neutral. His tactics are often morally questionable, and he does not hesitate to do some really filthy things. Look at what he did to Evey to get her to the point where she would "rather die behind the chemical shed."

I would say that his alignment is Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, depending on what's going on inside his head. And we don't know what's going on inside his head. How much does he care about the moral vileness of the government he is warring against? How much is it about that, and how much about personal revenge?

I don't think we can ever know.

BardicDuelist
2008-11-06, 12:13 AM
CE. But he had good intentions in the end. The whole reason why he trained Evey was so that she could rebuild (which he knew that he couldn't do). To him, the end justifies the means, but he's an evil murdering psycho. Granted, he's a sympathetic one.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-06, 12:45 AM
Dear farking god I'm tired of these threads. Seriously, EE, why do you keep making them?

Look, by YOUR definition, V is probably evil. Fine. But I postulate that by your definition EVERY "hero" who by the necessity of circumstance is forced to take life (which would be all of them) is evil. Which of these heroes is "good" by your standards: Aragorn, The Bride, Neo, Robin Hood, Galahad, Achillies, King Arthur, James Bond, Elric, Luke Skywalker. I'm willing to give good money that you'll call every one of them neutral or evil, because every single one of them took innocent lives in favor of a greater ideal.

If EVERYONE is evil, then what's the point of even having good? Seriously, nobody, short of honest-to-god divine beings, is capable of meeting your criteria. Therefore, what's the point of even having good is nobody can manage it?

You have impossible standards for your heroes. More power to you if it makes you happy. But if you have to make threads to talk about how you're clearly the only person on the internet with moral standards, then make them somewhere else.

I tend to agree with EE's views on alignment most of the time. Killing is never good--at best it's a necessary evil. Yes, sometimes evil is necessary. You could argue V was necessary, because society had to be destroyed before it could be rebuilt as something better, but that doesn't make what he does "okay."

Also,

Aragorn: LG. Respects authority and tradition, deals honorably with all even when they don't deserve it (Wormtongue, Saruman, Denethor). Selflessly risks himself for the common weal (including going into almost-certain death).

The Bride: LE. Obsessed with revenge (for most of the movie), willing to kill/maim anyone who gets in her way, but holds to a warrior's code of honor (she's basically a straightforward martial arts protagonist, upholding the honor of her master Pai-Mei and allowing no insult to stand).

Neo: TN. Like he says himself, "I'm just a guy." He never makes any major decisions, but gets carried along with the flow of events until the end of the movie, when he decides to save Morpheus. Saving those dear to you isn't an aligned action though. And even though he's a rebel against "the system," he's not especially chaotic--I think most anyone would choose to fight the machines, given his choice. And I'm not counting the sequels, I erased them from my memory.

Robin Hood: CG. Come on, this needs no explanation.

Galahad: LG. See above.

Achilles: LE. Like his fellow Acheans, he's a warrior-born and holds steadfastedly to a code of honor. He's actively chosen to seek glory, knowing the cost will be his own life. Even though he's basically a **** to the other Greeks, he does have a legitimate grudge with Agamemnon, but the basic immorality of his outlook (he cares only for glory, nothing for the lives he destroys) and his selfishness make him evil.

King Arthur: LG. He's not perfect, but he tries and comes damn close to leading a virtuous life.

James Bond: NE. He gets the job done, at any cost. If he has any qualms about endangering innocents (like the woman he seduced for information), he swallows them down. I'd say lawful, but he's so sure that he always knows what to do that he has no problem going rogue and defying the government--confident he'll always be proven right.

Luke Skywalker: I'll just defer to the SWRPG and say Jedi must be Lawful and Good because I'm getting tired of thinking about this.

An evil alignment doesn't mean you can't be a worthy protagonist. It doesn't mean you can't be sympathetic, or even cool to hang out with. It just means you're not a good person. In my view, very, very few people are good persons (if anyone) and an objective alignment system just makes that even clearer.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-06, 12:54 AM
You just said that killing is always evil (a view I disagree with) yet claim that Aragon, Robin Hood, Galahad, and King Aurthur are all good. Everyone of them kills, committing evil acts. And does so for less justifiable reasons than V (well except Aragon). Why are they good when V is evil?

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-06, 01:01 AM
You just said that killing is always evil (a view I disagree with) yet claim that Aragon, Robin Hood, Galahad, and King Aurthur are all good. Everyone of them kills, committing evil acts. And does so for less justifiable reasons than V (well except Aragon). Why are they good when V is evil?

They never kill anyone unless it's necessary. Aragorn and the Fellowship shouldn't need more detailed explaining. King Arthur only killed people either in chivalric combat, or when required to execute someone as a criminal under the law--which is necessary to keep society running. In the legend, Robin Hood never steals from anyone who wasn't living fat off ill-gotten gains, and distributes it amongst the needy--you can also argue that (the legendary) John was an illegitimate usurper. And don't forget that for all the Medieval characters, they are acting in their offices as appointed by God, who really and clearly exists in the legends. In their own universes, they're good. I already gave examples of V (comic version) killing and torturing innocent people, and the movie version is at least responsible for causing dangerous anarchy and violating some very important rights on Evey.

EDIT: And why do you think destroying society is a more worthy cause than upholding or restoring fair and peaceful law, anyway? O_o

Asbestos
2008-11-06, 01:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that Luke killed dozens, or even perhaps thousands of innocents. According to Starwars.com (which is you know, owned by Lucasfilm) the Death Star which Luke blew up, "carried a crew of 265,675, plus 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 25,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 167,216 pilots and support crew". Now, maybe we can justify killing the gunners, troops, stormtroopers, crew, and pilots... but the support staff!?

Sure, the paladin is justified in killing the evil invading soldiers, but is he justified in killing off the guys in the chow wagons and the blacksmiths that forge and repair the soldiers' weapons?

Luke, CE (what? he's trying to overthrow the government too)

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-06, 01:55 AM
I refuse to explain the difference between a world-smashing spaceborn battle-station and a TV news-station.

Asbestos
2008-11-06, 02:06 AM
I refuse to explain the difference between a world-smashing spaceborn battle-station and a TV news-station.

I'm quite aware of the difference. Let me try another example, since the invading army one apparently didn't strike home. A factory produces bombs, said bombs are used to blow up innocents. The staff at the factory consists of some soldiers guarding the place, the people running the factory, the people selling the bombs, the people making the bombs, and the people cleaning up the factory. At the end of the work day they punch out and go home to their spouses and children. Maybe they call up their parents on the phone or something. The next day, they're at work, making bombs, and someone else rains a few thousand pounds of explosives on them. Bam, everyone in that factory is dead. That person is clearly a hero and every last one of those deaths was justified.


Let's not even get started on Death Star II which was still under construction... I hope all those workers took the day off that day.

Hida Reju
2008-11-06, 02:28 AM
I have to go with the Lawful Neutral part of this arguement.

I see what was done to Evey was harsh but not evil. He gave her the strength to overcome her own fears. He guided her every step of the way and even though his heart was breaking he carried on so she could become the women he knew she could be. So in my opinion it was an act of neutrality that was neither good (because of the means) or evil (Because of the intent).

He followed more the spirit of Law than the written one. His comment about the blind lady of Justice was very telling in this. He did have his revenge angle but that in combination with his actions was in my opinion why he was Neutral as opposed to good. With the exception of the female doctor none of the others he arranged the death of were even close to being innocent.

One of the problems people have with V is that he seems to be willing to "Sacrifice" the innocent in order to achive his goals. In reality he is sounding the drums and standing up for all the people too scared to stand up for themselves. But in truth he probably hates them at least a little for their weakness allowing all of this to happen.

They live in fear
He conqured his
He helped Evey conqure hers since he could not do the same for everyone.

Order taken to an extream is no better than pure chaos and in this case Order was going nuts. He had to introduce some controlled chaos so that true change could occur to bring it back into perspective. Only then could the written Law be as it should be. He fought so that the Law could be something that everyone could follow and be subject to.

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-11-06, 02:53 AM
Lots of interesting stuff here. For the record, I actually agree largely with EE's interpretation of D&D (which is what we're talking about here, after all) alignment. I just don't often have time to read through these threads.

That said, I think EE is too extreme in one aspect. Unjustified killing (in this case, I think the definition of murder applies) is evil; however, it is one evil ACT. A single act, by itself, does not ALWAYS cause alignment shift. If you are the most piously Good Wizard in the plane and you, in a fit of rage, kill someone in cold blood, that does not by itself cause you to suddenly become Neutral or Evil. That does, however, shift you slightly along the axis away from extreme Good. I agree that everyone, ever, can be put on the D&D alignment axis (I suspect most of us will come out as Neutral), doing so is just time consuming and difficult since you need to have an accurate account of basically all of that person's alignment-affecting actions.

BTW, that's UNJUSTIFIED killing, specifically. If killing at all was evil, then non-Evil campaigns would be REALLY boring for the melee characters ("I full attack with my greatsword, dealing non-lethal damage at the full penalty...sigh").

The heroes listed have already been addressed, so I won't reiterate, but all of them are clearly not Evil, or even Neutral. But, at the same time, I think we can all agree that they aren't all Good either. You'd have been better off arguing Batman or Superman or something.

I'm also of the opinion that the Giant has it right here. Your alignment may also depend on what alignment you WANT to be. Occasionally committing neutral/evil acts that you deeply regret should NOT be cause for alignment shift/fall for a paladin. The classic dilemma in which the paladin is forced to kill a child to save a city of innocents should NOT cause the paladin to fall, provided the paladin at least tries to come up with another solution and regrets his final choice of murder. Remember, the RAW may be formulaic but the flavor of it all (which is really why we play, right?) is that the paladin's powers are granted and taken away by the gods. Thus, the gods should know the intent behind the paladin's actions and should know that sometimes, Evil is required to do Good.

BTW, back on topic, I believe movie V to be Lawful Neutral/Evil. I haven't really decided on the whole killing innocents thing, but my feeling is that his personal code (the reason he is Lawful, in my mind) advocates limiting innocent casualties wherever possible, which I think he does. He doesn't revel in wanton slaughter of innocents. The rioting of the masks may be an unintended consequence, or even a mistake. Remember, even in D&D, people can make mistakes.

-JM

Riffington
2008-11-06, 07:12 AM
I'm quite aware of the difference. Let me try another example, since the invading army one apparently didn't strike home. A factory produces bombs, said bombs are used to blow up innocents.


Under the Geneva Conventions, a bomb factory is a legitimate military target, along with Death Stars. TV stations are not. That said: when you are planning an attack on a bomb factory, if all else is equal and you can pick between 3:30 when everyone is present and 4:30 when most people have gone home... you really ought to go for 4:30.


Similarly, it is true that one should *try* in a modern society with modern codes of justice to keep alive supervillains to bring them to trial. But against strong enough foes, deadly force may be the only answer. Also, many D&D villains are not "criminals" so much as enemy forces. There is certainly a difference between a pickpocket and a marauding orc.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 07:14 AM
A good intent doesnt turn an evil act into a neutral one. What matters is what you do, not why you do it.

There are three problems here:
First, people is confusing killing with murdering. Kill is neutral. Murder is evil

Second, there are too much of you who cant accept that a main character can be evil without having to be a psycho.

Third, people seems to forget that this is all based on what would be V's aligment if he was a D&D character in a D&D world. Real life has no use for aligment because in RL there are gray areas, but in a world where there are things like "detect aligment" or aligment dependant items, morality is black and white.

And V being LN??????????? He has proven to be very lawful when he said that any kind of goverment is a bad thing. Come on, having a code does'nt mean you are lawful. You can be caothic evil but you never kill babies or women, that's a code. Think about Robin Hood, he has a code, and I bet that everyone here would label him CG.

And yeah, torturing a close one to make her see things your way is a neutral act right? Mind rape is a perfect thing to do if you believe that what you are doing is the right thing. Right?

The ends justiffy the means is not good, and it doesnt turn evil acts into neutral.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 07:19 AM
Only if you let it. Its not up to what the books say. Its up to what you the DM say.

If you want to play in a world thats not realistic, thats fine, but it shows the flaw's of the actual alignment system.

Humans are all vile rotten creatures. Period. Good acts are done sure, but they arn't good acts to everyone. Just like awful acts arnt awful to everyone.

It is the book's view we are talking about, DM's can make the standards higher or lower as they see fit.
But the idea of the system is that right and wrong aren't equal to good and evil, so a person can be helping people and still be evil

Draco Dracl, The newer version wants to be CG, but doesn't fit teh bill


Disagree on Luke. What about all those on Jabba's skiff? Sure, some were attacking him, but it wasn't all of them. Those in charge of the music, for instance, probably weren't evil, but I don't see them escaping Luke's blowing up of the skiff. It's also possible to argue that all those Stormtroopers that were killed at various points by the rebellion were just trying to get by under the Empire.

As far as i recall, i don't think he directly killed anybody on Jabba's who wasn't attacked him. But Leia was the one who blew up the ship, which killed some civilions, so maybe
But the people on the death star were acceptable targets, it was a battle stations build to destroy whole planets.


As far as V, I would say he's chaotic good, in the movie, and chaotic neutral, in the book. In the movie, although he was somewhat motivated by revenge, he's portrayed as a freedom fighter and also as meticulous in avoiding killing innocents. (On the other hand, there's the messy deal with the collateral when he sends out the masks, so I think he makes mistakes.) However, as a rule, he only kills those who in some way or another deserve it, and those who's deaths will further his goal of toppling the LE government. I don't see him as any different from Robin Hood or the like, and iirc Robin Hood is often portrayed as a sort of quintessential CG character.
Robin hood, or at least the "classic" robin hood only hurts the guards and troops, while V hurts both civilions and his on people (Evey). Being a freedom fighter isn't an excuse for evil, it just makes a slightly better person while doing it


In the book, he's more morally ambiguous (Read it, it's better then the movie), and his support for anarchy is kind of morally grey. Also, he fits in well with the idea of resenting authority, and I see him as more a chaotic character that is inclined towards a neutral philosophy. (Anarchy isn't inherently bad, if you ask me.)

Yeah the book was better, but defenitly evil



On the other hand, I can see how it would be debateable, as multiple times he causes acts that either endanger or end in the deaths of innocents, and he shows no remorse. He also shows little value for redemption, not allowing another's wishing for forgiveness to stay his hand form killing her.
Remember how he tortured the doll person too

from
EE

RMS Oceanic
2008-11-06, 07:21 AM
The Original Graphic Novel by Alan Moore's version, to me, is definately Chaotic Neutral. It's not about smashing the facist system. It's about smashing the system. He wants to make a society without law, a land of do as you please, where people voluntarily behave nicely to each other, without having the fear of law to enforce it.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 07:32 AM
The Original Graphic Novel by Alan Moore's version, to me, is definately Chaotic Neutral. It's not about smashing the facist system. It's about smashing the system. He wants to make a society without law, a land of do as you please, where people voluntarily behave nicely to each other, without having the fear of law to enforce it.

Yet again, the thing is that it doesnt matter what do you want to achieve but the way you choose to do it.

RMS Oceanic
2008-11-06, 07:34 AM
True, and in that regards, he definately dances around the evil/neutral border, whereas in the movie, it's more good/neutral. I still think he's decisively chaotic, either way.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 07:37 AM
Indeed. I dont see how someone can doubt V being caothic. I have to disagree with you on that good/neutral border of he movie. He might be on the neutral/evil though, that torture thing with the girl places him in the evil side or somewhere too close to it.

Pronounceable
2008-11-06, 08:17 AM
All V cares about is anarchy/freedom. He may have a rigid code, but he uses that to spread chaos. That's DnD chaotic.

He murders a lot evil people (except the occasional killing). Then there's civilian casualities, which he doesn't care much. Which makes him DnD evil.

These and other things makes his DnD alignment Awesome Spectacular.

cenghiz
2008-11-06, 09:05 AM
To tell the truth, I didn't read the whole thread. But I want to strike at the 'chaotic' part.

Your lawful evil devil forces his way into a human settlement from hell. He has work to do. The local law prohibits killing. He kills. The local law prohibits enslaving. He does so, either. I'm sure torture is against the laws of that human settlement too, but he doesn't care. Utter chaos shakes the settlement and it's caused by the devil. But he obeys the devil lords he has to answer to and tries to accomplish the unique plan laid out.

The lawful evil protagonist wants the enemy city weakened. He poisons the water supply. He invests time in random bombings, especially towards hospitals and factories. He creates chaos... for his Lord.

Being lawful shouldn't always mean obeying every and each law you come across. You must have a set value system for your lawful character and obey them, no matter what. You must believe and respect authority of some sorts, but not every authority you face. I don't think a lawful character will fall if he manages guerilla warfare against a settlement. He may fall from 'good', sure, why harm innocents who can do nothing but obey their superiors?

And for V? He was systemmatic. He had an ideal and worked for it. He wasn't lawful indeed. We can see that. But why chaotic? Creating chaos to further your plot shouldn't always be chaotic.

In D&D, I would call V neutral evil. He doesn't stray from the path he has drawn as much as he can and that path passes through on a lot of actions D&D considers evil. But random chaos isn't his way. But as a DM, I would warn him to be a bit more lawful not to fall into the 'chaotic' category I guess.
infectious,
sig

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 09:33 AM
Why caothic? Because his goal was the utter destruction of goverments systems. Being systematic or planning has nothing to do with aligment, althout chaothic people have a tendency sometimes to act instinctively, but that is shadowed by high int scores.

@V: Sorry!:smalltongue:

Worira
2008-11-06, 10:02 AM
I don't like nitpicking spelling, but please stop writing "caothic".

ashmanonar
2008-11-06, 10:44 AM
I am going to stab in the thumb with a toothpick until it hits bone. Dear Lord, the Horror you must endure from a toothpick.


ANYWAY


If V was killing for something petty, it would be murder and he would be evil. He is not. He is killing for a greater good, a chance for the British People to be free. Some innocents may suffer for the liberty and happiness of millions.
chaotic Neutral.

And frankly, I don't ever see V hurt or injure a civilian/innocent. The bomb might have, if it had gone off, but I maintain that V intended the bomb to fail.

Everyone that V kills in the movie is/was a government agent. Even the female doctor was no innocent in the activities at Lark Hill.

They were all what I would classify as evil people (even if unwillingly), and so V's assassination of them was appropriate in the context of his rebellion.

Note that V does NOT kill the #2 British cop, when he could have easily. I think he realizes that the cop was not an evil person in the same vein as the others, and was only doing his job the best he could.

I give him True Neutral. He's a very ordered and structured person in his own way, and is inciting rebellion/chaos because he feels it's the right thing to do.

paddyfool
2008-11-06, 10:51 AM
I reckon V is CE in the book, CN in the film, with Chaos as the primary attribute of the two in both. However, even in the book he's clearly a lesser evil than the LE neo-nazi administration. His motivations seem to be (1) revenge, and (2) anarchy, and he isn't too bothered about collateral damage. Also, in what he did to Evey... he probably thought he was setting her free in the process.

Incidentally, even in the book he's an example of a CE type that might actually fit into some non-evil parties (as long as their goals roughly coincided with his and they were paladin-free). Not too bad.

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-11-06, 11:00 AM
I would not have qualms about making him Chaotic, as I can see that anarchy was his goal. However, I quote SRD:


"Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, OR she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. "

Emphasis mine. The point here is that he carries out his goals based on his personal code and what he believes.

I would say he is definitely NOT chaotic neutral. Here:


SRD:

A chaotic neutral characterdoes not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy.

That seems fairly clear. Chaotic Good or Evil may still be on the table as far as I see, but neutral, not so much. True Neutral is also identified more with a lack of conviction in the SRD than with a balanced view. Particularly because in the SRD, True Neutral specifically lacks strong convictions while the issue with V is not that he lacks convictions, its that he uses mixed methods to achieve his goals.

-JM

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-06, 11:02 AM
I reckon V is CE in the book, CN in the film, with Chaos as the primary attribute of the two in both. However, even in the book he's clearly a lesser evil than the LE neo-nazi administration. His motivations seem to be (1) revenge, and (2) anarchy, and he isn't too bothered about collateral damage. Also, in what he did to Evey... he probably thought he was setting her free in the process.

Incidentally, even in the book he's an example of a CE type that might actually fit into some non-evil parties (as long as their goals roughly coincided with his and they were paladin-free). Not too bad.

Agree completely.

In the Graphic Novel, V talks about himself as a "Black Sheep", a "Villain". Maybe this is ironic, but maybe is only self-knowledge. In the GN he's Evil, but his goals are Chaotic more than everything else. Torturing Eve to let her know the whole thing is the proof.

The setting has not defined alignements, but could be considered a Law/Chaos war like the Blood War in D&D (until 3.5 at least sigh).

Simply, V is far, FAR more Chaotic than Evil, and since is a Person and not a Demon, shows pleasant aspects of himself (his irony and culture i.e.)

And about him Lawful: in the GN, he declares that he does not longer trust in "Madame Justice" because he slept with the dictatorship. He trusts in Anarchy.

More, he says that he's the destruction side of anarchy, and Eve will be the more constructive side. This changing concept lead me to definitively Chaotic mind-setting.

paddyfool
2008-11-06, 11:10 AM
JM,

You need to look at the next sentance from that quote:


A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

Based on this, V would seem to have something of a balance of good and evil. Good, because he wants to liberate others; evil, because he wants revenge on the administration and wants to see them suffer. Torture and so forth tends to tip the scales towards evil on the whole. So he could be thought of as either CN or CE, but a tad conflicted, imho.

Lord_Gareth
2008-11-06, 11:21 AM
In the movie, I would pin V as Chaotic Nuetral. Prepare for references!

Since EE brought them up, the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness are both quite clear that intention does matter, in a sense, in the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. The BoED mentions that "violence directed against good, no matter the reason, is not good," but it further explains that it's not necessarily evil. A Paladin in a war between her lawful good nation and another lawful good nation does not fall for killing a good person; she simply doesn't get Divine Bonus Points [Patent Pending] for it either.

In the movie, V is acting based on an altruisitc philosiphy - indeed, his desire to save culture and art that would have otherwise been lost could be reasonably argued as a favor to society. V saw an oppressive system of government, fell victim to it, and acted against it in the way he saw best fit to do so. However, his methods, while not blatantly evil, are certainly questionable; while his victims certainly deserved to die, his attacks on them were carried out with a certain kind of sadistic class. The doctor is a case where V's action bordered on evil; by killing her in spite of her repentance, V did not act according to (and I can't stress this part enough) D&D's definition of Good. However, she did commit crimes against innocent beings that demanded, in V's mind, to be punished.

That's the key here - V's intentions are good in the movie, but his actions are extremely questionable, which is what puts him, in my opinion, at Chaotic Nuetral.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-06, 11:26 AM
Being lawful shouldn't always mean obeying every and each law you come across. You must have a set value system for your lawful character and obey them, no matter what. You must believe and respect authority of some sorts, but not every authority you face. I don't think a lawful character will fall if he manages guerilla warfare against a settlement. He may fall from 'good', sure, why harm innocents who can do nothing but obey their superiors?

And for V? He was systemmatic. He had an ideal and worked for it. He wasn't lawful indeed. We can see that. But why chaotic? Creating chaos to further your plot shouldn't always be chaotic.


Being systematic doesn't make you lawful. Chaotic characters aren't incapable of long-term planning, extensive organization, or showing extreme patience. They usually prefer to do things in the most direct way, but obviously any with intelligence will be as smart as they need to be.

The fact that V explicitly says he's fighting for a world without government or laws, a utopia of pure anarchy, and that he rejects Justice for Freedom (he's smart enough to realize you can't have both), in my mind is enough to give him a chaotic alignment. Hell, if the story used D&D tropes, V would probably be some kind of exemplar or avatar of chaos.

DigoDragon
2008-11-06, 11:26 AM
The Game and Character:
Tales of Symphonia and Lloyd Irving

*looks at his copy of the game he's coincidently holding* :smalleek:
Okay now I have to play this game...


I liked the D&D 2E alignment system where things that didn't snuggly fit into a specific alignment had a "tendency" suffix attached. Like, I could vote for V being LN (with Evil tendencies), but I believe alignments are subjective anyway so this is just my opinion. :smallsmile:

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-11-06, 11:28 AM
JM,

You need to look at the next sentance from that quote:



Based on this, V would seem to have something of a balance of good and evil. Good, because he wants to liberate others; evil, because he wants revenge on the administration and wants to see them suffer. Torture and so forth tends to tip the scales towards evil on the whole. So he could be thought of as either CN or CE, but a tad conflicted, imho.

Hmm, I admit I hadn't thought of that. Ok, I will not write off CN, although I personally still see the personal code as being very important to V's character (at least, the film version, which is the only one I have experience of).

-JM

Talya
2008-11-06, 11:34 AM
Missed this yesterday, or I wouldn't have had to post this on another forum:

Postdated Penny for the Guy

I didn't remember the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason, forgot
Though the same season, the gunpowder treason
On the sixth of November, was not.

Asbestos
2008-11-06, 11:38 AM
Under the Geneva Conventions, a bomb factory is a legitimate military target, along with Death Stars. TV stations are not. That said: when you are planning an attack on a bomb factory, if all else is equal and you can pick between 3:30 when everyone is present and 4:30 when most people have gone home... you really ought to go for 4:30.


Similarly, it is true that one should *try* in a modern society with modern codes of justice to keep alive supervillains to bring them to trial. But against strong enough foes, deadly force may be the only answer. Also, many D&D villains are not "criminals" so much as enemy forces. There is certainly a difference between a pickpocket and a marauding orc.
My whole point was, that according to D&D alignment, Luke shifts into Evil when he blows up the Death Star since he kills off a number of innocents without remorse. I was backing up SwordGuy's earlier point about how ludicrous it is to try and peg non-D&D characters into the byzantine (correction: idiotic) alignment system.

Whether the Geneva Conventions call bomb factories or battle stations 'legitimate military targets' is completely irrelevant. The Geneva Conventions don't define "Good" and "Evil" they declare what is 'kosher' in war and what isn't, which in a way, is a bit ridiculous. Even so, some innocent chump is at that bomb factory when it gets blown up thanks to having a crummy shift, and were it the Death Star all those chumps live in the factory. Man, how about that? Luke didn't just kill a bunch of innocent support crew, he probably killed a bunch of them while they were eating breakfast, in the shower, on the john, or asleep. And then he cheered!

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-11-06, 11:48 AM
My whole point was, that according to D&D alignment, Luke shifts into Evil when he blows up the Death Star since he kills off a number of innocents without remorse. I was backing up SwordGuy's earlier point about how ludicrous it is to try and peg non-D&D characters into the byzantine (correction: idiotic) alignment system.

Whether the Geneva Conventions call bomb factories or battle stations 'legitimate military targets' is completely irrelevant. The Geneva Conventions don't define "Good" and "Evil" they declare what is 'kosher' in war and what isn't, which in a way, is a bit ridiculous. Even so, some innocent chump is at that bomb factory when it gets blown up thanks to having a crummy shift, and were it the Death Star all those chumps live in the factory. Man, how about that? Luke didn't just kill a bunch of innocent support crew, he probably killed a bunch of them while they were eating breakfast, in the shower, on the john, or asleep. And then he cheered!

To be fair, if there were a way to permenantly disable/destroy the Death Star without killing all those people, I'm pretty sure Luke would have chosen that. As it was, he was forced to select the lesser of two evils (in his mind), similar to many classical ethical dilemmas.

As we've discussed, intention comes into play here. Luke may have killed numerous innocent non-combatants, but he did so to prevent the deaths of many other innocent non-coms, as well as many combatants fighting for what he perceived as the Greater Good. Evil may outweigh Good, but Evil done with Good intentions, to serve the Greater Good, must be mitigated. In other words, I'm not prepared to say that Luke's killing of hundreds/thousands of innocent non-coms on the Death Star necessarily tilts him completely to Evil. It's not a Good act, to be sure, but I don't think it makes him Belkar or Redcloak either.

-JM

Mushroom Ninja
2008-11-06, 11:51 AM
As far as i recall, i don't think he directly killed anybody on Jabba's who wasn't attacked him. But Leia was the one who blew up the ship, which killed some civilions, so maybe
But the people on the death star were acceptable targets, it was a battle stations build to destroy whole planets.


A star wars nerd, I find it my duty to point out that it was Luke who told Leia to point the guns at the skiff.

Talya
2008-11-06, 11:54 AM
In war, the definition of "innocent" shifts. Soldiers are "innocent," they are just following orders, often completely unaware of the reasons behind the war. That doesn't make it evil for the opposing side to kill them.

Factory workers are not innocent from the perspective of the warring side, if the factory is supplying the war effort.

War itself is not necessarily evil, by D&D ethos, and some "innocents" always die in war.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-06, 12:01 PM
The problem with your argument is that the Star Wars universe is a ridiculous place; V for Vendetta is (was) a serious story. It would be easy to make V look as dashing and heroic as any film hero, but Alan Moore deliberately chose to portray him as a terrorist and a monster, and show the full consequences of his actions.

Luke's lack of angst over what he did is actually pretty troubling when you apply that same lens to the Star Wars universe. But otherwise, no, it's not an evil* action, because Luke was a soldier in a war against a cartoonishly evil regime. V is not a soldier: he is a terrorist. Unlike the rebel alliance, he deliberately attacks civilian targets and, well, uses terror.

Also you have to get rid of this idea that V wants to make the world a nice and safe place where everyone can have their voice heard. That's not what he's fighting for. He's fighting for absolute freedom, for everyone. Stop and think about what that means: robbery, murder, rape and rapine. He knows all of these will come from the government's fall, but he figures it's alright because things will eventually settle down into some kind of free-wheeling lovefest. But even if everything goes perfectly, it won't be like any kind of organized society. V wants to destroy civilization.

Who did he ask about this? No one. Did he take a poll of Londoners to ask what they thought should be done? Of course not. Most of them would have probably supported the regime--it kept them safe, it kept society running, it gave them jobs and things to buy. Ironically, making his bid to create a land where everyone can do as they please, V isn't asking anyone whether they want it to happen or not. He's nothing like the Rebel Alliance, who are fighting to restore a democratic government which the Emperor usurped and dissolved. They obviously have the support of a very large segment of the galaxy. They're really, really obviously the good-guys. Your attempt to equivocate Luke Skywalker (soldier, Jedi, Galactic Savior) with V (terrorist, mad bomber, vengeful bastard) is silly.

*Or more accurately, it's an evil action that falls under the banner of Necessary Evil, which certainly won't cause an alignment shift for Luke. Which has been my whole point all along: killing is always an evil action, but sometimes good people need to do it.

Dairun Cates
2008-11-06, 12:03 PM
*looks at his copy of the game he's coincidently holding* :smalleek:
Okay now I have to play this game...

Consequently. I messed up slightly... it's a random old lady. Not his Grandma. And actually, apparently what I did isn't far from what they do in the sequel to the game. The main character sees the main character from the last game as a villain because of the way it impacted his own life.

Talya
2008-11-06, 12:12 PM
Also you have to get rid of this idea that V wants to make the world a nice and safe place where everyone can have their voice heard. That's not what he's fighting for. He's fighting for absolute freedom, for everyone. Stop and think about what that means: robbery, murder, rape and rapine. He knows all of these will come from the government's fall, but he figures it's alright because things will eventually settle down into some kind of free-wheeling lovefest. But even if everything goes perfectly, it won't be like any kind of organized society. V wants to destroy civilization.



This is why I didn't care for the comic, but loved the movie.

GolemsVoice
2008-11-06, 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piedmon_Sama View Post
Also you have to get rid of this idea that V wants to make the world a nice and safe place where everyone can have their voice heard. That's not what he's fighting for. He's fighting for absolute freedom, for everyone. Stop and think about what that means: robbery, murder, rape and rapine. He knows all of these will come from the government's fall, but he figures it's alright because things will eventually settle down into some kind of free-wheeling lovefest. But even if everything goes perfectly, it won't be like any kind of organized society. V wants to destroy civilization.

This is why I didn't care for the comic, but loved the movie.

Well. that's not entirely right. Of course, V never denies that the first months/years after the government's fall will be chaos (mind you, he discriminates between chaos and anarchy), but, in his mind, chaos will be followed by Ordnung, the perfect society, which does no longer need governing. Although his means are still clearly non-good, in D&D terms, the future he envisions has no need for destroyers. It is clearly some form of utopia, and a good one for the people involved. After the chaos, of course.

hamishspence
2008-11-06, 12:40 PM
Have read book of movie, haven't seen movie.

Following points might be worth noting, from a D&D centric perspective, before pegging anything.

Neutral is a zone between Evil and Good. Depending how severe you are with alignment, it can be a pretty narrow zone.

Alignment usually, but not always, changes slowly, by DMG.

Good and Chaotic intentions plus minor evil acts might make V Chaotic Neutral regardless of the comment about not disrupting systems. In this case V is either a Falling Hero or a Rising Villain.

Even major ones might not cause alignment change if you very generous. However I prefer Champions of Ruin system- if acts are evil enough, alignmnet is evil no matter how good the intentions.

Concerning "Good Points" There is no Good Point system, only a Corrupt Act system. By Fiendish Codex 2, evil acts count, not good ones, for afterlife purposes, if nothing else.

"Its evil" is not much of a justification- "Its an active and immediate threat to the lives of others" might be. Every person unjustly killed by The System is murdered- a murderer as big and dangerous as The System needs to be taken down, if you are working from altruistic premises.

"Nobody is innocent" to cooperate with evil is to be evil. Up to a point, that is true- aiding and abetting, even done for altruistic reasons (the safety of family held hostage, say) is morally dubious.

But, BoED says- Evil non-combatants are protected. You aren't allowed to attack them, drop fireballs on mixed group of them and evil soldiers, etc.

The comment about evil acts under magical compulsion- Fiend Folio- Fiend of Corruption. Evil acts done this way count, they are just much easier to atone for. The phrasing used in "Not fully corrupted but a useful first step"

Unforseeable Accident- never evil. Forseeable one- negligence- maybe.

I'm not sure about carrying out act you don't know is evil. Executing an innocent man, but not knowing it at the time, say. I wouldn't count it toward corrupt acts- must be intentional, but I would apply the Falling rule, since by the letter of the rules of the Atonement spell, through 2nd ed, 3rd ed, and 3.5, you Fall.

hamishspence
2008-11-06, 12:44 PM
The most good-aligned anarchy in D&D is Diaboli society (updated to 3.5 in Dragon mag and Dragon Compendium)

It has "traditions, customs and taboos" to prevent things getting out of hand. They are Chaotic subtype Outsiders, and virtually all are CG- the rare CN to CE, or N, ones tend to leave.

If it requires nearly every society member to be CG aligned, and still needs "customs" to keep members from violating rights of others, how much harder would it be for humans to live by it?

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 12:48 PM
Lots of interesting stuff here. For the record, I actually agree largely with EE's interpretation of D&D (which is what we're talking about here, after all) alignment. I just don't often have time to read through these threads.

That said, I think EE is too extreme in one aspect. Unjustified killing (in this case, I think the definition of murder applies) is evil; however, it is one evil ACT. A single act, by itself, does not ALWAYS cause alignment shift. If you are the most piously Good Wizard in the plane and you, in a fit of rage, kill someone in cold blood, that does not by itself cause you to suddenly become Neutral or Evil. That does, however, shift you slightly along the axis away from extreme Good. I agree that everyone, ever, can be put on the D&D alignment axis (I suspect most of us will come out as Neutral), doing so is just time consuming and difficult since you need to have an accurate account of basically all of that person's alignment-affecting actions.

BTW, that's UNJUSTIFIED killing, specifically. If killing at all was evil, then non-Evil campaigns would be REALLY boring for the melee characters ("I full attack with my greatsword, dealing non-lethal damage at the full penalty...sigh").

The heroes listed have already been addressed, so I won't reiterate, but all of them are clearly not Evil, or even Neutral. But, at the same time, I think we can all agree that they aren't all Good either. You'd have been better off arguing Batman or Superman or something.

I'm also of the opinion that the Giant has it right here. Your alignment may also depend on what alignment you WANT to be. Occasionally committing neutral/evil acts that you deeply regret should NOT be cause for alignment shift/fall for a paladin. The classic dilemma in which the paladin is forced to kill a child to save a city of innocents should NOT cause the paladin to fall, provided the paladin at least tries to come up with another solution and regrets his final choice of murder. Remember, the RAW may be formulaic but the flavor of it all (which is really why we play, right?) is that the paladin's powers are granted and taken away by the gods. Thus, the gods should know the intent behind the paladin's actions and should know that sometimes, Evil is required to do Good.

BTW, back on topic, I believe movie V to be Lawful Neutral/Evil. I haven't really decided on the whole killing innocents thing, but my feeling is that his personal code (the reason he is Lawful, in my mind) advocates limiting innocent casualties wherever possible, which I think he does. He doesn't revel in wanton slaughter of innocents. The rioting of the masks may be an unintended consequence, or even a mistake. Remember, even in D&D, people can make mistakes.

-JM

1) your right to an extent. I mean if V accidently killed a clerk at one point, or just didn't accept mercy once, then he could still be neutral. But the fact the does so on a regular basis (like Torturing Evey) that makes him evil. And your right about the difference between killing and murder. When he kills Creedy and his men, he isn't murdering anybody, he is killing a band of black ops who are shooting him. Even when he snaps Creedy's neck, he isn't evil, Creedy never once asked for mercy and kept trying to shoot him. But when he used the personel at the station as human shields there was a problem
2) The giant's thing was about the different types of good. In terms of Law and Chaos with good and evil intetion does matter. Intention doesn't matter s much with evil
3) A paladin who kills a single innocent to save a city will fall, because he is still killing an innocent, which is an evil action. Evil people with good intentions are really common

I have to go, but one more note, the Death star. That wasn't murder. Every single person on that ship 'knew' (or at least as far as luke knew) they were on an operation to spread terror through the glaxiy through mass murder. none asked for quarter. Legit
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-11-06, 01:10 PM
in novel- Death Star, not everybody did- its like a floating city- there really are a lot of support staff. Some of those who did know, stole a shuttle and got off during the Battle of Yavin.

The novel even makes you sympathise some with Tenn Graneet, the man who pulled the lever. "Only Following Orders" breaks down when order is that evil, but at least his concience is troubled badly. He delays the final shot, simply repeating "Stand by." You may have noticed in the film it is said once at Alderaan but twice at Yavin. This is the book reason why.

snoopy13a
2008-11-06, 01:54 PM
I'm pretty sure that Luke killed dozens, or even perhaps thousands of innocents. According to Starwars.com (which is you know, owned by Lucasfilm) the Death Star which Luke blew up, "carried a crew of 265,675, plus 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 25,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 167,216 pilots and support crew". Now, maybe we can justify killing the gunners, troops, stormtroopers, crew, and pilots... but the support staff!?

Sure, the paladin is justified in killing the evil invading soldiers, but is he justified in killing off the guys in the chow wagons and the blacksmiths that forge and repair the soldiers' weapons?

Luke, CE (what? he's trying to overthrow the government too)

You guys should watch Clerks.

Dante and Randal argue whether the destruction of the Death Star II was tainted because of the deaths of thousands of independent contractors (to paraphase, they needed thousands of workers for that, more than the Imperial Navy could supply).

Anyway, they are corrected by a roofer who states that contractors know what they are getting into beforehand. He tells an antedote about how he turned down a roofing job from a known mobster. Another guy takes the job and is killed when rival mobsters attack the house. His conclusion is that the contractors for the second Death Star knew what they were getting into and they deserve what they got.

Riffington
2008-11-06, 02:00 PM
My whole point was, that according to D&D alignment, Luke shifts into Evil when he blows up the Death Star since he kills off a number of innocents without remorse.
Bah. They're enemy soldiers in D&D. Besides, the Death Star he was targetting is an entirely legitimate target. Even in D&D, intentions matter.



Whether the Geneva Conventions call bomb factories or battle stations 'legitimate military targets' is completely irrelevant. The Geneva Conventions don't define "Good" and "Evil"


They are the product of some of the best military ethicists' (and thousands of years of experience) understanding of how to avoid the horrors of war. They make great guidelines for avoiding evil actions in war. Obviously they are not identical with good and evil, but they are a superb starting point.


Also: Snoopy is absolutely correct.

hamishspence
2008-11-06, 02:04 PM
Don't know about second, but the first was built by slaves and conscripted convicts, under the direction of construction experts. At least one of which was also a convict. And when completed- some people who built it were still on it. This is, however, the novel version.

And they blew up the convict planet Despayre (this is in the Star wars guides), shocking even some of the hardline imperials. Blowing up Alderaan as well was the breaker for some of thm.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 06:47 PM
I would argue that V is very Chaotic with respect to law and chaos. He opposes the very idea of organized government and pursues a private campaign of revenge (literally, a vendetta) against the state. Which is not to say he doesn't have good reasons for doing so, but the fact remains that he does.

Comic book V is if anything even more chaotic than movie V, and is far more indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Neither portrayal of V has any real interest in keeping society organized or stable after the collapse of the fascist government.
____________

As for Good and Evil, that's harder to judge.

I would say that V is not actively evil, though he definitely commits evil acts. On the other hand, I would say that he is not actively good, though he definitely commits at least some good acts.

in D&D, committing evil acts is enough to make you actively evil. Very few people would be actively evil,


His main objective (revenge against some very bad people who wronged him terribly) is morally neutral. His tactics are often morally questionable, and he does not hesitate to do some really filthy things. Look at what he did to Evey to get her to the point where she would "rather die behind the chemical shed."

1) revenge is morally evil in D&D
2 Just a note on intentions, the fascists have a a reason for what their doing, at least in the book, bringing about stability and peace. They just have a brutal way of doing it.



I would say that his alignment is Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, depending on what's going on inside his head. And we don't know what's going on inside his head. How much does he care about the moral vileness of the government he is warring against? How much is it about that, and how much about personal revenge?

I don't think we can ever know.

I just don't think its relevant actually. What ever his motives, that doesn't justify his actions by the D&D standard. Everybody has good motives, its the methods that make a difference



You just said that killing is always evil (a view I disagree with) yet claim that Aragon, Robin Hood, Galahad, and King Aurthur are all good. Everyone of them kills, committing evil acts. And does so for less justifiable reasons than V (well except Aragon). Why are they good when V is evil?
I never said killing is evil, murder is always evil. Murder is unjustified killing, by D&D standards. What your personal views on killing and my personal views are irrelevance, its the games that matter.




I'm pretty sure that Luke killed dozens, or even perhaps thousands of innocents. According to Starwars.com (which is you know, owned by Lucasfilm) the Death Star which Luke blew up, "carried a crew of 265,675, plus 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 25,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 167,216 pilots and support crew". Now, maybe we can justify killing the gunners, troops, stormtroopers, crew, and pilots... but the support staff!?

Sure, the paladin is justified in killing the evil invading soldiers, but is he justified in killing off the guys in the chow wagons and the blacksmiths that forge and repair the soldiers' weapons?

Every man on that ship knew that he was doing, he was helping a weapon of mass murder . Every person there was part of the military personnel, every one was involved in the deaths of millions when they destroyed that planet. Just like killing enemy soilders, this is just defense.


Luke, CE (what? he's trying to overthrow the government too)

Over throwing a goverement doesn't make you chaotic (duh), because most laws are relative. Its acting unlawfully that makes you chaotic



I'm quite aware of the difference. Let me try another example, since the invading army one apparently didn't strike home. A factory produces bombs, said bombs are used to blow up innocents. The staff at the factory consists of some soldiers guarding the place, the people running the factory, the people selling the bombs, the people making the bombs, and the people cleaning up the factory. At the end of the work day they punch out and go home to their spouses and children. Maybe they call up their parents on the phone or something. The next day, they're at work, making bombs, and someone else rains a few thousand pounds of explosives on them. Bam, everyone in that factory is dead. That person is clearly a hero and every last one of those deaths was justified.
In a bomb factory you tend to have a large population of civilian workers, people just doing their jobs. When you have a milatary station, its a different matter entirely. If he blew it up before Alderon you could have a point, but after Aalderon, they know exactly what they are doing, what they are helping who they are supporting and waht is going to happen


I have to go with the Lawful Neutral part of this arguement.

I see what was done to Evey was harsh but not evil. He gave her the strength to overcome her own fears. He guided her every step of the way and even though his heart was breaking he carried on so she could become the women he knew she could be. So in my opinion it was an act of neutrality that was neither good (because of the means) or evil (Because of the intent).

That is disgusting. not evil? He tortured her. He kidnaped her against her will, starved her, cut her hair, tortured her, and emotionally traumatized her just to test her loyalty and enforce her dedication to his cause. The very act of taking somebody and forcing them to suffer like that for their "own good" is a massive act of hubris and evil, assuming he knows what is best for another person so that he can take away their free will
Also intent makes no difference in D&D when it comes to evil (with the exception of accidental) its about the actual actions. If intent made a difference, how i Adam Susan evil?


He followed more the spirit of Law than the written one. His comment about the blind lady of Justice was very telling in this. He did have his revenge angle but that in combination with his actions was in my opinion why he was Neutral as opposed to good. With the exception of the female doctor none of the others he arranged the death of were even close to being innocent.

People killed in the explosions, by the mobs, the people killed when he promote that anarchy through mobs, the people who are used as bloody human shields in the radio tower


One of the problems people have with V is that he seems to be willing to "Sacrifice" the innocent in order to achive his goals. In reality he is sounding the drums and standing up for all the people too scared to stand up for themselves. But in truth he probably hates them at least a little for their weakness allowing all of this to happen.

Fascism is a terrible ruthless system, but replace that with anarchy? With chaos? With the strong dominating the weak, destroying those who don't agree with them. V is just as bad as the people he fights, a theme made clear in the books


They live in fear
He conqured his
He helped Evey conqure hers since he could not do the same for everyone.

And who gives him that right? Who gives him the power to judge right and wrong? The people live in fear of chaos and anarchy, and in his freedom, he makes the sitaution just as badly


The Original Graphic Novel by Alan Moore's version, to me, is definately Chaotic Neutral. It's not about smashing the facist system. It's about smashing the system. He wants to make a society without law, a land of do as you please, where people voluntarily behave nicely to each other, without having the fear of law to enforce it.
Everybody wants a utupia, its how you go about it that matters



And frankly, I don't ever see V hurt or injure a civilian/innocent. The bomb might have, if it had gone off, but I maintain that V intended the bomb to fail.
1) He uses human shields in the film. That is pretty bad
2) If i shoot a gun at a baby, and my bullet misses, aren't i still doing evil? lesser evil buts still evil



Everyone that V kills in the movie is/was a government agent. Even the female doctor was no innocent in the activities at Lark Hill.

I thought good was about mercy and forgivness


They were all what I would classify as evil people (even if unwillingly), and so V's assassination of them was appropriate in the context of his rebellion.

So its ok when the main character is ruthless, just not the antagonist?


Note that V does NOT kill the #2 British cop, when he could have easily. I think he realizes that the cop was not an evil person in the same vein as the others, and was only doing his job the best he could.

What about the cops he kills in the radio tower

In the movie, I would pin V as Chaotic Nuetral. Prepare for references!

Since EE brought them up, the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness are both quite clear that intention does matter, in a sense, in the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. The BoED mentions that "violence directed against good, no matter the reason, is not good," but it further explains that it's not necessarily evil. A Paladin in a war between her lawful good nation and another lawful good nation does not fall for killing a good person; she simply doesn't get Divine Bonus Points [Patent Pending] for it either.
It also says that killing innocent people even when you use the greater good as a reference that isn't a justification and still makes you actions evil


In the movie, V is acting based on an altruisitc philosiphy - indeed, his desire to save culture and art that would have otherwise been lost could be reasonably argued as a favor to society. V saw an oppressive system of government, fell victim to it, and acted against it in the way he saw best fit to do so. However, his methods, while not blatantly evil, are certainly questionable; while his victims certainly deserved to die, his attacks on them were carried out with a certain kind of sadistic class. The doctor is a case where V's action bordered on evil; by killing her in spite of her repentance, V did not act according to (and I can't stress this part enough) D&D's definition of Good. However, she did commit crimes against innocent beings that demanded, in V's mind, to be punished
His methods are evil. Regardless of motive, torture, murder and lack of mercy are always evil, as are vendettas (ironically enough) are evil. Taking one of your best friends and torturing her until she aggresses with your ideals after intense brainwashing is nothing but sheer brutality.

My whole point was, that according to D&D alignment, Luke shifts into Evil when he blows up the Death Star since he kills off a number of innocents without remorse. I was backing up SwordGuy's earlier point about how ludicrous it is to try and peg non-D&D characters into the byzantine (correction: idiotic) alignment system.

The alignment system isn't byzantine or idiotic, it just actually holds to to the standards you claim to uphold. It requires you to actually restrain yourself and hold yourself to a higher standard than the people who claim to fight against.


man, how about that? Luke didn't just kill a bunch of innocent support crew, he probably killed a bunch of them while they were eating breakfast, in the shower, on the john, or asleep. And then he cheered!

Um, i doubt you'd be eating breakfast when you are about to kill some million people. the dearth star isn't a factory, it is a battle stations. LIke a large ship its point is to destroy people, for an evil unjust regime. The very act upon being there makes you a villain



This is why I didn't care for the comic, but loved the movie.
The comic is actually better than that i think. V almost as bad in the movie, the writers just try to justify his acitons more than anything else. Where as in the comic the writer is aware of his nasty evil nature and acts upon it

On the death star again, i said that luke would be good or at least neutral in the first movies. Cna't say for the books
from
EE

Greg
2008-11-06, 07:09 PM
Yes, or people could just stop posting their names at the end of their posts. Saving the Giant in bandwidth, themselves time, and not annoying others.
"from EE" is 7 letters. That quote was considerably more. Your argument is invalid.

I think V is more lawful than most people seem to. He lays out complex plans and sticks to them. Lawful doesn't always mean law abiding.

Glyde
2008-11-06, 07:17 PM
"from EE" is 7 letters. That quote was considerably more. Your argument is invalid.

I think V is more lawful than most people seem to. He lays out complex plans and sticks to them. Lawful doesn't always mean law abiding.

I think the point people are trying to get across is that it's obnoxious, and people are insecure to the idea of people thinking they're better than they actually are (Which, hilariously, goes both ways.)


I don't really have anything to contribute to this thread other than my opinion that V is CN. Everything that has to be said has already been said.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 07:19 PM
"from EE" is 7 letters. That quote was considerably more. Your argument is invalid.

I think V is more lawful than most people seem to. He lays out complex plans and sticks to them. Lawful doesn't always mean law abiding.

1) See, somebody here can get it, thanks
2) Chaotic doesn't have to mean they can't make plans, just that there general mannerisms are chaotic. Its just a the way they act. The movie version i'd consider NE, while the Book one goes into real chaotic evil
from
EE

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-06, 07:26 PM
This is why I didn't care for the comic, but loved the movie.

Me and Alan Moore are going to steal your hubcaps and write dirty words on the car windows with our fingers.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 07:28 PM
Me and Alan Moore are going to steal your hubcaps and write dirty words on the car windows with our fingers.

I like the comic because Moore had the guts to show his protagonist as evil
from
EE

Worira
2008-11-06, 07:31 PM
What exactly do you think bombs are used for?

Riffington
2008-11-06, 07:33 PM
What exactly do you think bombs are used for?

Bombs are for hugging?

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-06, 07:34 PM
I like the comic because Moore had the guts to show his protagonist as evil

Well I possibly agree for the comic ...

I'm still not convinced though. I'm mostly thinking CN with evil tendancies.

Copacetic
2008-11-06, 08:04 PM
"from EE" is 7 letters. That quote was considerably more. Your argument is invalid.

I think V is more lawful than most people seem to. He lays out complex plans and sticks to them. Lawful doesn't always mean law abiding.

Still, the 7 extra characters at the end of every single post adds up quickly. THe amount of posts with "from EE" at the ned of them on the first page of this thread alone more than make up for the quote. YOUR arguement is invalid.


Also, I stand by my theory that V is chatoic Neutral. Purpose does matter in an act. Stabbing the murdering goblin because you want his coat is different from stabbing the murder goblin because he is a murdering goblin.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 08:07 PM
Still, the 7 extra characters at the end of every single post adds up quickly. THe amount of posts with "from EE" at the ned of them on the first page of this thread alone more than make up for the quote. YOUR arguement is invalid.

And massive off topic discussions where a bunch of people whine about how others don't conform to their wishes had more pages



Also, I stand by my theory that V is chatoic Neutral. Purpose does matter in an act. Stabbing the murdering goblin because you want his coat is different from stabbing the murder goblin because he is a murdering goblin.
Is being a goblin a crime? No. If you need to kill him because he is a direct threat to yourself and others your fine, but murdering him just because he has murdered people doesn't make that justice. He tortures people just to make them agree with him
from
EE

Riffington
2008-11-06, 08:08 PM
Purpose does matter in an act. Stabbing the murdering goblin because you want his coat is different from stabbing the murder goblin because he is a murdering goblin.

Sure, but kidnapping, deceiving, and torturing your friend to "test her commitment"?

Stabbing the dwarf "because his tunnels may one day be a useful hiding spot for the murdering goblin"?

SadisticFishing
2008-11-06, 08:11 PM
Any Chaotic, depending what he wrote on his character sheet.

Yes, most alignment debates can be settled this way.

Copacetic
2008-11-06, 08:15 PM
And massive off topic discussions where a bunch of people whine about how others don't conform to their wishes had more pages

Is being a goblin a crime? No. If you need to kill him because he is a direct threat to yourself and others your fine, but murdering him just because he has murdered people doesn't make that justice. He tortures people just to make them agree with him
from
EE

First: No one here has whined. We simply are asking you that you use the disignated Signature space which automatically attaches that to the end of your posts.

Second: No, being a goblin is not a crime. Killing the goblin for his coat? Crime. Killing him because he about to kill someone else, possibly you? Not Crime. Killing innocents to bring down the big scary LE government? Still not good, but better than killnig innocents to take their coat.



Sure, but kidnapping, deceiving, and torturing your friend to "test her commitment"?

Stabbing the dwarf "because his tunnels may one day be a useful hiding spot for the murdering goblin"?

Not test; create. He made her strong, by showiing her the horrific acts the Government had commited. So there was never any doubt in her mind that
she had to do what she had to do to topple the government.

EDIT:
I almost forgot
obnoxious
sig

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 08:41 PM
...Second: No, being a goblin is not a crime. Killing the goblin for his coat? Crime. Killing him because he about to kill someone else, possibly you? Not Crime. Killing innocents to bring down the big scary LE government? Still not good, but better than killnig innocents to take their coat...


What matters is that it is an evil act, not the degree of evilness. You can be evil because you steal things from old ladies just for the sake of it or you can be evil because you crucify babies in your basement while you force the mother to watch. People here are saying that V is evil, it doesnt matter how much evil he is.

Copacetic
2008-11-06, 08:46 PM
What matters is that it is an evil act, not the degree of evilness. You can be evil because you steal things from old ladies just for the sake of it or you can be evil because you crucify babies in your basement while you force the mother to watch. People here are saying that V is evil, it doesnt matter how much evil he is.

Yes, it does matter how Evil he is.If he commits a few, evil but not so bad acts, compared to the giant honking Good Act, even with EE's infamous Evil>Good ratio, he is still neutral. Chaotic neutral.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-06, 08:54 PM
My take on Good Vs. Evil (if based on actions alone, not factoring intent):
Good: People as whole recieve a net benifit from your actions.
Nuetral: People as a whole niether recieve net benifit nor net harm from your actions.
Evil: People as whole recieve net harm from your actions.

Riffington
2008-11-06, 08:56 PM
compared to the giant honking Good Act

Saving a woman from getting raped is great and all, but it doesn't even cancel out subsequently kidnapping her (let alone the rest)...

Vexxation
2008-11-06, 08:57 PM
His alignment varies, if you ask me. Which you are, by posting this thread. *ahem*

At first, V was, I can safely assume, Neutral Good. He was just some guy in a cell, getting experimented on. No specific morals or opinions given out, just your average above-average (genetically) guy.

Then, the explosion. Rage. Furious, pounding rage and a veritable bloodlust for revenge. This is all in interpretation. If you classify vengeance as evil, he's probably Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil at this point.

He calms down a bit and formulates his far-too-elaborate plan. Chaotic Neutral. Maybe even Chaotic Good at the best of times. Heck, Neutral Good if you feel that his calculated plans outweigh his desire to topple the regime.

Tortures Evey. Chaotic Good. You call it evil? Consider that without enduring it she never would have awakened as the stronger person she became. He took her from a weak vessel and empowered her to do great deeds. Chaotic means, Good ends.

Carries out his plan. Lawful Good. The Declaration of Independence states that when a government has become too powerful, too controlling, and no longer serves the will of the people under it, it is the right, the duty of every citizen to overthrow it. Taking this as an example, what he did was provide means and inspiration for a more fair, more just, less corrupt, and less cruel, bigoted, and overbearing government. He brought a truly Lawful society that would serve the public Good.

Overall, I'd rate him a Neutral Good. He did bad things. But bad things happen to bad people. And when one does bad things to bad people, they aren't bad things. He brought chaos from order so that a better order could emerge from chaos. Neutral Good.

Innis Cabal
2008-11-06, 08:59 PM
I like the comic because Moore had the guts to show his protagonist as evil
from
EE

No ones done that before.

And killing dosn't make you evil

Riffington
2008-11-06, 09:04 PM
I must say that I am quite disturbed by the number of people who think brainwashing is non-Evil (let alone that it is a Good goal that can justify kidnapping, psychological destruction, and torture)

Copacetic
2008-11-06, 09:12 PM
Saving a woman from getting raped is great and all, but it doesn't even cancel out subsequently kidnapping her (let alone the rest)...

No, I meant toppling The LE Government.


I must say that I am quite disturbed by the number of people who think brainwashing is non-Evil (let alone that it is a Good goal that can justify kidnapping, psychological destruction, and torture)

Not Brainwashing. V was insipiring her to fight the BBEG(Big Bad Evil Government). Through fairly ..... moralyl grey means, but still not As Evl as you make it sound.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 09:19 PM
His alignment varies, if you ask me. Which you are, by posting this thread. *ahem*

At first, V was, I can safely assume, Neutral Good. He was just some guy in a cell, getting experimented on. No specific morals or opinions given out, just your average above-average (genetically) guy.

Dude, what? Just... I... WHAT?????

No specific moral and you classify him as pure good?????? I dont like 4th ed aligment system, but ou could've said unaligned and my head would'nt had exploded.


Then, the explosion. Rage. Furious, pounding rage and a veritable bloodlust for revenge. This is all in interpretation. If you classify vengeance as evil, he's probably Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil at this point.

So, being angry changes your aligment? The CG barbarian turns to CE when he rages, right... So I guess that being happy turns you into LG then.


He calms down a bit and formulates his far-too-elaborate plan. Chaotic Neutral. Maybe even Chaotic Good at the best of times. Heck, Neutral Good if you feel that his calculated plans outweigh his desire to topple the regime.

Yeah, problem is, that his plans arent good at all, and they involve the fall of all forms of goverment. Mmmm, yeah, that's what NG people do, promote anarchy through acts of terrorism.


Tortures Evey. Chaotic Good. You call it evil? Consider that without enduring it she never would have awakened as the stronger person she became. He took her from a weak vessel and empowered her to do great deeds. Chaotic means, Good ends.

Yeah, that's the epitome of goodness, kidnapping and torturing, yeah. The end justifies the means, that's the slogan of every good guy out there. I you are good, means DOES matter. Extreme case, "kill a baby or I'll destroy the world", good, you killed the baby, saved millions of lives. But that doesnt take away the fact that you killed a baby. Problem here seems to be that people cant get out of their heads the Zykon evil stereotype.

Plus, torturing isnt chaothic, it's evil. The norse fire party also tortured people, and you cant deny that they are lawful. You cant compare chaos with good, because one involoves ethics and the other one morals. In your way of seeing things, you cannot be chaothic good.


Carries out his plan. Lawful Good. The Declaration of Independence states that when a government has become too powerful, too controlling, and no longer serves the will of the people under it, it is the right, the duty of every citizen to overthrow it. Taking this as an example, what he did was provide means and inspiration for a more fair, more just, less corrupt, and less cruel, bigoted, and overbearing government. He brought a truly Lawful society that would serve the public Good.

OK, so, he works towards anarchy, he destroys the goverment with the intention of having no other goverment installed. Of course, very lawful of him. He didnt send masks to people to generate chaos, a chaos that resulted in fights and even some deaths. That's what LG people do, take advantage of other people to further their goals. Do that while playing a paladin and then tell me what did your dungeon master did with his paladin status.


Overall, I'd rate him a Neutral Good. He did bad things. But bad things happen to bad people. And when one does bad things to bad people, they aren't bad things. He brought chaos from order so that a better order could emerge from chaos. Neutral Good.

So, bad things to bad people are good things? EDIT:Imagine this: Two evil groups of goblins fighting over territory, both doing evil things to each other, wich one is the one who's actions should be considered good because were done to an evil group?

Riffington
2008-11-06, 09:26 PM
No, I meant toppling The LE Government.

So, that's not actually Good per se. Evil people topple one anothers' governments all the time. To be Good, you need to do more than destroy.




Not Brainwashing. V was insipiring her to fight the BBEG(Big Bad Evil Government). Through fairly ..... moralyl grey means, but still not As Evl as you make it sound.
How is what he did different from brainwashing?

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 09:42 PM
First: No one here has whined. We simply are asking you that you use the disignated Signature space which automatically attaches that to the end of your posts.

Yes you have, your entire little thing is just endless whining and complaining about how i have the audacity to do what i want with my posts. you've asked me to stop, and i've said that i won't because it doesn't hurt anybody nor is their a valid reason for its removal other than not fitting within your ideal of "proper". I'll use my sig space for what i want to, not what you want me too, i'll sign my post the way i want, because i honestly don't give a damn about what you considered proper sig behavior as you've presenting no case other than "I want it to be done this way" and i certainly amd no going to conform to your way of doing things over a series of childish and petty complaints.



Second: No, being a goblin is not a crime. Killing the goblin for his coat? Crime. Killing him because he about to kill someone else, possibly you? Not Crime. Killing innocents to bring down the big scary LE government? Still not good, but better than killnig innocents to take their coat.

It may be better than killing them to get their coat but it is still evil. Killing innocents for any reason other than an accident is evil in D&D, absolutely. No matter what you justify it with, by D&D terms it is still an absolute evil action and thus V is made evil from it. If your talking in justification, Adam Susan is Neutral.



Not test; create. He made her strong, by showiing her the horrific acts the Government had commited. So there was never any doubt in her mind that
she had to do what she had to do to topple the government.

It is still torture. he took her away against her will, treated her extremely brutally and made her suffer, to brainwash her into seeing things his way. that is torture and that is evil. If she had consented you might have a point, but she didn't and thus it is an evil action.


Yes, it does matter how Evil he is.If he commits a few, evil but not so bad acts, compared to the giant honking Good Act, even with EE's infamous Evil>Good ratio, he is still neutral. Chaotic neutral.
1) Its not mine, its D&D's. My personal morals are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours and everybody's else's.
2) And he has committed more than a few. Every time he kills an innocent thats another evil act, every time he refuses mercy that is an evil act, every time he resorts to evil that is an evil act. Every time he kills for vengence (hint hint, vendetta) that is an evil act. As he portrays next to none of the good values (Sure he is against Tyranny, but he has no sense of mercy, forgiveness, kindness or even justice). He is bloody evil



Tortures Evey. Chaotic Good. You call it evil? Consider that without enduring it she never would have awakened as the stronger person she became. He took her from a weak vessel and empowered her to do great deeds. Chaotic means, Good ends.
Torture is an evil act. And emotionally scaring her isn't for her benefit, its for his, so she will do what he wants her too.



No ones done that before.

And killing dosn't make you evil
1) I never said anybody else did, i just liked him for it. Personally i like Martin
2) True, murder makes you evil
3) I don't remember if i said this already, but nice avatar



Not Brainwashing. V was insipiring her to fight the BBEG(Big Bad Evil Government). Through fairly ..... moralyl grey means, but still not As Evl as you make it sound.
"I'm not brainwashing her, i'm inspiring her" how many terrorists have said that before. You can't make that argument when he took away her free will in the process. He has the hubris to deiced what was better for her. And torture in D&D is always evil, motives don't make a damn difference. If torturing a prisoner for information is evil, then torturing somebody so they will do your bidding is certainly evil
from
EE

Vexxation
2008-11-06, 10:55 PM
Dude, what? Just... I... WHAT?????

No specific moral and you classify him as pure good?????? I dont like 4th ed aligment system, but ou could've said unaligned and my head would'nt had exploded.
I tend to give humanity the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in general, people tend toward good. So I assumed his former life as Neutral Good. Unaligned, True Neutral, whatever you think he was. That part of his life isn't too important, anyway.




So, being angry changes your aligment? The CG barbarian turns to CE when he rages, right... So I guess that being happy turns you into LG then.

No, anger does not lead to CE. Not directly. But killing purely for the sake of vengeance is.


Yeah, problem is, that his plans arent good at all, and they involve the fall of all forms of goverment. Mmmm, yeah, that's what NG people do, promote anarchy through acts of terrorism.

Did you not notice the part where the government was oppressive and quite evil itself? Yeah, it's suuuuure not a Good act to overthrow an evil dictatorship that requires the signing of the abhorred Articles of Allegiance...


Yeah, that's the epitome of goodness, kidnapping and torturing, yeah. The end justifies the means, that's the slogan of every good guy out there. I you are good, means DOES matter. Extreme case, "kill a baby or I'll destroy the world", good, you killed the baby, saved millions of lives. But that doesnt take away the fact that you killed a baby. Problem here seems to be that people cant get out of their heads the Zykon evil stereotype.

I'm willing to bet that, if asked, Evey would prefer that V tortured her. Sometimes one has to be made to endure to fully understand. She endured, she understood, she forgave.


Plus, torturing isnt chaothic, it's evil. The norse fire party also tortured people, and you cant deny that they are lawful. You cant compare chaos with good, because one involoves ethics and the other one morals. In your way of seeing things, you cannot be chaothic good.

By "Chaotic means" I meant that it was a lie and really not the most direct way of educating her. The typical Lawful way would be to talk it into her, but some things can't be told, they must be experienced.


OK, so, he works towards anarchy, he destroys the goverment with the intention of having no other goverment installed. Of course, very lawful of him. He didnt send masks to people to generate chaos, a chaos that resulted in fights and even some deaths.

Yes, he sent out masks to create chaos. Chaos was useful, and was indeed a part of the plan, but the goal was to overthrow the government, not cause deaths in the chaos. Even the noblest of Paladins will suffer collateral damage. Still, the Lawfulness is in the thoroughness of his plans, the perfectly executed betrayals he caused, the absolute adherence to his own values.

If it helps, I'm sure V was very very sorry that anyone died in the chaos that followed...


So, bad things to bad people are good things? EDIT:Imagine this: Two evil groups of goblins fighting over territory, both doing evil things to each other, wich one is the one who's actions should be considered good because were done to an evil group?

"Bad things happen to bad people" doesn't mean his actions should be seen as Good. Neutral, at best. However, the overall result of his hurting bad people was a massively Good occurrence.

As far as I'm concerned, the ends does justify the means in V's case.
Also: Since when does V not want any form of government? I could've sworn his vendetta was against Sutler's regime and how it was all evil-y and such, not against government in general.

EvilElitest
2008-11-06, 11:08 PM
No, anger does not lead to CE. Not directly. But killing purely for the sake of vengeance is.




Did you not notice the part where the government was oppressive and quite evil itself? Yeah, it's suuuuure not a Good act to overthrow an evil dictatorship that requires the signing of the abhorred Articles of Allegiance...

If ends justify the means, according to your theory, then the Norsfire regime is neutral, they are only doing what is best for the larger group (IE the basis of fascism)



I'm willing to bet that, if asked, Evey would prefer that V tortured her. Sometimes one has to be made to endure to fully understand. She endured, she understood, she forgave.

It doesn't matter if she forgave him afterwards, thats the bloody point of brainwashing, its to make people sympathize with their tormenters. Its the actual act of torture itself that is evil, on a massive level (see also betryal, hurting innocents)



By "Chaotic means" I meant that it was a lie and really not the most direct way of educating her. The typical Lawful way would be to talk it into her, but some things can't be told, they must be experienced.

Oh yes, because she must be educated to see the "true way", she can't arrive at that conclusion on her own, she needs to suffer as he has sufferer. Hubris. That's just sick, and his justification is little more than an excuse for his god complex


Yes, he sent out masks to create chaos. Chaos was useful, and was indeed a part of the plan, but the goal was to overthrow the government, not cause deaths in the chaos. Even the noblest of Paladins will suffer collateral damage. Still, the Lawfulness is in the thoroughness of his plans, the perfectly executed betrayals he caused, the absolute adherence to his own values.

Chaos is part of his plan (see anarchy) and he doesn't hold himself to any code what so ever.


If it helps, I'm sure V was very very sorry that anyone died in the chaos that followed...

Considering he deliberately planned it and it fits his ideal of anarchy, i don't think he gave a damn



"Bad things happen to bad people" doesn't mean his actions should be seen as Good. Neutral, at best. However, the overall result of his hurting bad people was a massively Good occurrence.

Ends don't justify the means in D&D, see absolute morality



As far as I'm concerned, the ends does justify the means in V's case.
Also: Since when does V not want any form of government? I could've sworn his vendetta was against Sutler's regime and how it was all evil-y and such, not against government in general.

1) Because you say so? this is D&d morality, which is absolute, and that ends don't justify the means
2) If that was the case he wouldn't destroy the old belfry. Anyways, a vendetta is evil worth noting
from
EE

Doomsy
2008-11-07, 12:18 AM
Oh yeah? This is the real conundrum of Star Wars for me. The Death Star thing is crap. People were manning a giant laser weapon. Run by a psychopath who chokes people with mystical powers if they piss him off. If you think that is a safe place to raise a kid or live a normal life free of risk, Darwin just called to tell you you fail at natural selection. That whole argument is pretty much moot. The one moral thing in Star Wars that still gets me is this:


The Ewoks were going to eat the main characters. This is not a lie, a falsification, or a misinterpretation: those little furry guys were going to *devour* Luke, Leia, a bigger hairier version of themselves in Chewie, and I don't know, maybe just boil R2D2 until he got soft.

While 'cannibal' might only mean your own species, this is still pretty godawful unwholesome.

It gets better.

The Rebel Alliance used these 'cannibalistic', stone age savages as shock troops against a heavily armed enemy encampment. Did you see any prisoners taken? I did not. I saw a huge party after the battle. I saw Ewoks playing on storm trooper helmets like they were drums.

Those little furry people eat people and quite possibly devoured the corpses of that entire Imperial regiment and they were allied with the 'good guys'. Seriously. That's some bad ethical stuff there. I mean, the Imperials blew up a planet, yes, but they did not EAT PEOPLE. I just hope Luke and Leia did not eat any of the entrees at that victory party. God knows what fifty year old clone tastes like. I don't want to know.

Thank God the fallout and after effects of the Death Star blowing up hopefully killed all of those creepy little furry monsters. Otherwise I'd imagine diplomatic functions in the Alliance would be pretty difficult, what with the Ewoks thinking everything non-Ewok or made out of gold was dinner.

Just the fact the Alliance was a-okay with feeding living people to the Ewoks marks Luke and everybody else associated as pretty much horrible monsters.

Dervag
2008-11-07, 12:38 AM
I'm pretty sure that Luke killed dozens, or even perhaps thousands of innocents. According to Starwars.com (which is you know, owned by Lucasfilm) the Death Star which Luke blew up, "carried a crew of 265,675, plus 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 25,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 167,216 pilots and support crew". Now, maybe we can justify killing the gunners, troops, stormtroopers, crew, and pilots... but the support staff!?

Sure, the paladin is justified in killing the evil invading soldiers, but is he justified in killing off the guys in the chow wagons and the blacksmiths that forge and repair the soldiers' weapons?

Luke, CE (what? he's trying to overthrow the government too)Cue the "Death Star contractors" argument from Clerks.

People involved in the maintainence and operations of a large military base armed with planet-crushing weapons are not innocent civilians. They don't even have the protection you can arguably apply to bomb factory workers- they are directly involved in military operations.

The Death Star was about the ultimate military target that can be imagined. I mean, even the name makes it an obvious military target. You do not call your big mobile space station "Death Star" unless you're planning to do some major killing.
___________

As for the Ewoks, their cannibalistic tendencies make them creepy, but I'm not sure it makes them evil.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-07, 12:47 AM
Well if you just think that a lot of people on your space station are going to die I suppose Death Star is a valid name, even if you don't plan on doing any killing. :smallwink:

Worira
2008-11-07, 01:27 AM
Plus, torturing isnt chaothic, it's evil. The norse fire party also tortured people, and you cant deny that they are lawful. You cant compare chaos with good, because one involoves ethics and the other one morals. In your way of seeing things, you cannot be chaothic good.

Chaotic. Not caothic, not chaothic.

Doomsy
2008-11-07, 01:45 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Ewoks were not basically cute midget teddy bears they would be viewed underneath a far harsher light.

They *eat people*. That is not creepy or a little strange. That is pretty much as barbaric as it gets.

That is *eating people*. For food. Intelligent people. Who ask them not do this. And get eaten anyway unless they have a golden idol to tell the vicious little cannibals not to eat them or risk divine wrath - and it took Luke faking a miracle to convince the Ewoks to not eat people that were clearly just as intelligent as they were even after their 'god' told them not to do it.

They obviously very very much enjoy eating people. Those poor stormtroopers were probably torn limb to limb by those little teddy bears. You'd think the Jedi would have felt that one for sure.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-07, 01:51 AM
They obviously very very much enjoy eating people. Those poor stormtroopers were probably torn limb to limb by those little teddy bears. You'd think the Jedi would have felt that one for sure.There was a cannibalism thread a while back that brought up similar issues. My opinion is that if they're already dead or going to die anyways, eating people is neutral. Killing for food is a bit grayer, but if it is the only way to survive, I'd have a hard time condemning them for it. In this case, the Storm Troopers probably couldn't be taken captive reasonably(where would you put them) so execution is the only option. Eating them afterward isn't evil, IMHO. Now, eating Han, Luke, and Chewie is probably evil, once they realized they were intelligent, but is it really evil to do what you can to survive?

Doomsy
2008-11-07, 01:54 AM
There was a cannibalism thread a while back that brought up similar issues. My opinion is that if they're already dead or going to die anyways, eating people is neutral. Killing for food is a bit grayer, but if it is the only way to survive, I'd have a hard time condemning them for it. In this case, the Storm Troopers probably couldn't be taken captive reasonably(where would you put them) so execution is the only option. Eating them afterward isn't evil, IMHO. Now, eating Han, Luke, and Chewie is probably evil, once they realized they were intelligent, but is it really evil to do what you can to survive?

See. You're using the 'they look like cute teddy bears' mindset again.

They baited Chewbecca with meat.
They clearly had enough food to feast with the main characters after C3PO and Luke convinced them he was a god they should pay attention to when he had to tell them twice to not eat people.

They're not doing this for survival. This is not a last resort.
They're doing this because they like the taste, man.

And that makes them *pure evil* little teddy bears.

Also, the 'already going to die' thing is pretty much a terrible inclusion. Under that generalization it is okay to kill and eat the elderly, the badly injured, the sick (they *might* die!), the people you are going to kill so you can eat them, etc. Moral blank check there. Also, mass execution of disarmed and helpless prisoners is pretty much right there in the evil category. So is feeding them to your tiny adorable cannibal savage army. Good is about not taking the easy route.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-07, 03:43 AM
About the death star, and the goodness of destroy it, my opinion:

Imagine two situations: the Death Star not destroyed, and the Death Star destroyed. Considering that there was no way to persuade the empire to not use the DS without permanentelly surrender to the Emperor, which of the two situations above leads to more destruction? To more suffering? to more innocent killed?

I could say to a final victory against the Emperor, but could be a false statement, because could be a reasoning done by an Evil person, too.

But.. about innocents... with a not destroyed DS, more innocents would perish. Come on.. that thing destroys a PLANET with a single strike.

EvilElitest
2008-11-07, 07:55 AM
I'd say the Ewoks are evil because they kill people simply to eat people is evil. But the rebels aren't evil just for working with them, through they would be if they supported the Ewoks eating people

Now eating somebody isn't bad if you were going to kill them for some other reason, like self defense. Its killing them to eat them that is a problem
from
EE

acirruscloud
2008-11-07, 08:17 AM
People shouldn't be afraid of their governments

It's naivete like this that allows those with power to exercise it without consequence.

Governments aren't automatically noble or good. They, like the human beings that run them, tend toward self interest.

hamishspence
2008-11-07, 08:21 AM
point to be made its Death Star was built with slave labour- And when it left Despayre some people were still putting stuff in.

Now, if you take Thrawn's view that innocent hostages on a ship wielded by the very evil cannot be used to prevent you attacking it, the presence of a few slaves on the ship doesn't mean you can't attack it.

But it does make victory rather grimmer.

Also- the Empire's usual justification for use of force on others is- Terrorists. A lot of Expanded Universe novels give you some of this- the fact that many Imperials genuinely believe what they are doing is right, and don't see all of the Empire's evil deeds.

"The First Galactic Empire, For A Safe and Secure Society!"

Darth Revan, The Empire, Darth Krayt, etc, most of the people who support these are Well Intentioned Extremists. Most novels with Vader in stress this "We can end this destructive conflict and bring Order to the galaxy!"

Very, very brutal WIEs, but WIEs nonetheless.

As for fear of governments- the best laws are those that protect people from the government. "Emergency Powers" should generally ring alarm bell in people's minds.

Death Star was very secret project until almost the last minute, people being rotated in to Death Star duty from a lot of places.

Sure, if most were Good there would have been a massive revolt the moment the superlaser blew up Alderaan (assuming everyone aboard could see it on their vid screens) But people aren't always that brave.

paddyfool
2008-11-07, 09:17 AM
Hmm. Diet and being evil... that's a tricky one.

According to some people, eating meat of any kind is evil (or wearing leather, or eating eggs, dairy or honey). Other people might selectively view eating some more specific things as evil, such as 1) cruelly kept animals (e.g. battery chickens, veal calves), 2) the more intelligent animals (e.g. gorillas, chimpanzees, dolphins and whales), 3) endangered species (assuming knowledge that what you're killing and eating is endangered), 4) animals they're particularly fond of (dogs, horses), or 5) animals forbidden by their religion. Of course, for every person that considers any of these evil, there are probably half a dozen more who just view it as vaguely undesirable/morally icky etc.

Now, in D&D, most races interact with other races at least to the extent of knowing and understanding that they're dealing with sentient beings who can communicate, ie "people" (to use a very broad sense of the term). However, it would seem that the Ewoks' definition of "person" might basically approximate to "Ewok", with anything else tasty-looking being "Food". Is this because they like the idea of being cruel to non-Ewoks? Or is it because they simply haven't had much contact with other sentient life at all, and thus it hasn't entered their philosophy? Also, note that Leia was not apparently viewed as food by the Ewok she befriended and managed to establish basic communication with, while the rest of the party were presumably as incomprehensible to the Ewoks as Chewie is to us. In short, it hardly seems like a cut-and-dried issue. However, the Rebels, via C3PO should, of course,discourage the Ewoks from future eating of people (and who knows, maybe they did?)

As for the Death Star... pfeh. That thing destroyed planets; how else was it meant to be stopped?

Copacetic
2008-11-07, 09:45 AM
Yes you have, your entire little thing is just endless whining and complaining about how i have the audacity to do what i want with my posts. you've asked me to stop, and i've said that i won't because it doesn't hurt anybody nor is their a valid reason for its removal other than not fitting within your ideal of "proper". I'll use my sig space for what i want to, not what you want me too, i'll sign my post the way i want, because i honestly don't give a damn about what you considered proper sig behavior as you've presenting no case other than "I want it to be done this way" and i certainly amd no going to conform to your way of doing things over a series of childish and petty complaints.


It may be better than killing them to get their coat but it is still evil. Killing innocents for any reason other than an accident is evil in D&D, absolutely. No matter what you justify it with, by D&D terms it is still an absolute evil action and thus V is made evil from it. If your talking in justification, Adam Susan is Neutral.


It is still torture. he took her away against her will, treated her extremely brutally and made her suffer, to brainwash her into seeing things his way. that is torture and that is evil. If she had consented you might have a point, but she didn't and thus it is an evil action.

1) Its not mine, its D&D's. My personal morals are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours and everybody's else's.
2) And he has committed more than a few. Every time he kills an innocent thats another evil act, every time he refuses mercy that is an evil act, every time he resorts to evil that is an evil act. Every time he kills for vengence (hint hint, vendetta) that is an evil act. As he portrays next to none of the good values (Sure he is against Tyranny, but he has no sense of mercy, forgiveness, kindness or even justice). He is bloody evil







"I'm not brainwashing her, i'm inspiring her" how many terrorists have said that before. You can't make that argument when he took away her free will in the process. He has the hubris to deiced what was better for her. And torture in D&D is always evil, motives don't make a damn difference. If torturing a prisoner for information is evil, then torturing somebody so they will do your bidding is certainly evil
from
EE

Have it your way, at the price of the disrespect of me and more than a few other forum members.

You missed my point. Killing the goblin to stop him from stabbing a a two-year old grl in the face is different from killling him for his coat. I.E. Actions can be identical with alignment changes.



It is still torture. he took her away against her will, treated her extremely brutally and made her suffer, to brainwash her into seeing things his way. that is torture and that is evil. If she had consented you might have a point, but she didn't and thus it is an evil action.

HJow many people would consent to torture? Evey before hand would not have, but post-torture Evey would rather "Die behind the chemical shed" than give up V. Even better, Evey forgives him at the end of it. Stealing a candy bar from a friend? Evil. But giving it back, and they forgive you, and everyone is a better person because of it? Less Evil.



1) Its not mine, its D&D's. My personal morals are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours and everybody's else's.
2) And he has committed more than a few. Every time he kills an innocent thats another evil act, every time he refuses mercy that is an evil act, every time he resorts to evil that is an evil act. Every time he kills for vengence (hint hint, vendetta) that is an evil act. As he portrays next to none of the good values (Sure he is against Tyranny, but he has no sense of mercy, forgiveness, kindness or even justice). He is bloody evil

1) Incorrectimeundue. In the U.S. system of Law, we have different judges to interpret the Consititution. If it was completely clear and everyone interpretted it perfectly, Judges would not be neccesary. But this is dragging Real-wordl politics in here, so I'm going to stop there. but the point is that Your Personal morals affect your interpretation of the rules, and my morals affect my interpretation of the rules as well.
2)A couple of things:

First: "...Every time he resorts to Evil, that is an evil act..." The Heck? What are you saying here?

Second: The refusing mercy bit? Say he says " Oh alright, come along. I'll just throw you in a jail cell". What do you think happens? the Evil government CONTROL the Jail cells. They'd be out in five seconds, and back to raping cute little puppies again. Everytime he kills an innocent? Collateral damage. Hence why he is not good, but neutral.

Third: Last, Grey Hands (or whatever they are called) are basically murdering machines. No kindness, no redemming Evil-doeers. But they are still good.



"I'm not brainwashing her, i'm inspiring her" how many terrorists have said that before. You can't make that argument when he took away her free will in the process. He has the hubris to deiced what was better for her. And torture in D&D is always evil, motives don't make a damn difference. If torturing a prisoner for information is evil, then torturing somebody so they will do your bidding is certainly evil

Watch me. Do you think Evey was agaisn't the government? Do you think she hated it, like everyone else? Now she had the will to fight it to her last breath. And she didn't do his bidding. She wasn't a servant. She did excatly what she wanted to do( Take down The BBEG *hinthint*). Also, please stop inpretetting the rules that way. Torture is not always evil. It is your interpertation.

Always, more proof he is Neutral.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

V avoids killing innocents when possible. He also has the commitment to help others, as shown by him saving Evey from rape. And he is commited to Evey throgh personnal relationship.

Fostire
2008-11-07, 09:47 AM
I'd say the Ewoks are evil because they kill people simply to eat people is evil. But the rebels aren't evil just for working with them, through they would be if they supported the Ewoks eating people

Now eating somebody isn't bad if you were going to kill them for some other reason, like self defense. Its killing them to eat them that is a problem
from
EE

I'd say that the ewoks where just killing for survival, the way an animal hunts for food. As such I would classify them as neutral. I don't think the ewoks had the brains to realize that they where eating intelligent beings.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-07, 10:03 AM
Essentially, ewoks are Varelse.

Lord_Gareth
2008-11-07, 10:27 AM
EE, it's become obvious at this point that you're throwing everyone else's points away out of hand. Stop arguing if you're not even going to concede the possibility that you're wrong.

On the subject of Ewoks and the eating of people - Lizardfolk eat people, and are Nuetral. That is all.

Riffington
2008-11-07, 10:37 AM
Even better, Evey forgives him at the end of it.

What do you think of Stockholm Syndrome?

Telonius
2008-11-07, 11:04 AM
I'd peg him as Chaotic neutral, emphasis on the chaotic. He sometimes uses evil methods, sometimes uses good methods. The (D&D) goodness or evilness of it doesn't really come into play for him; so neutral. He has a goal, formal anarchy, that is very (D&D) Chaotic in nature. He feels that such a society would be beneficial. (Beneficial, which is not quite exactly the same as D&D-good). That's the overriding characterization of his actions, not whether or not they're good. CN.

Coplantor
2008-11-07, 12:15 PM
...HJow many people would consent to torture? Evey before hand would not have, but post-torture Evey would rather "Die behind the chemical shed" than give up V. Even better, Evey forgives him at the end of it. Stealing a candy bar from a friend? Evil. But giving it back, and they forgive you, and everyone is a better person because of it? Less Evil...

You are saying that if someone forgives the evil doer then the evil deed is not considered evil anymore?
She was brainwashed by him, she's probably evil too at that time of the movie/comic. The consequences of an act are not important to define the aligment of it, it's the act itself what counts. Torture is evil, it doesnt matter if the person forgives the torturer afterwards, it doesnt even matter who was tortured, if he was gulty of a crime or a poor victim of a psycho.

One thing I noticed on this thread, people relates planning with lawfulness. That's a mistake, you can create complex plans regardless of your aligment, what defines the capacity of an idividual to make complex and working plans is the intellect. Check AD&D 2nd edition Combat and tactics for a reference, last chapter was about creatures in combat, and it was about how does a creature fights according to its aligment and its intelligence score. Lawful creatures fight in groups and prefer tactics involving cooperation while chaotic (this one is for you Worira) creatures prefer tactics that invloves exploiting their individual power. Creatures with low inteligence fight instinctively, rhose with average intelligence ussually fight according to what they know about their enemies and can change the way they fight if the situation calls for it, creatures with high intelligence scores always have a plan, or two, they try to read the enemy and change the plan if needed.

Copacetic
2008-11-07, 04:59 PM
What do you think of Stockholm Syndrome?

BS. Moving on. Evey forgived him because he was V, not because he kept her hostage.




You are saying that if someone forgives the evil doer then the evil deed is not considered evil anymore?
She was brainwashed by him, she's probably evil too at that time of the movie/comic. The consequences of an act are not important to define the aligment of it, it's the act itself what counts. Torture is evil, it doesnt matter if the person forgives the torturer afterwards, it doesnt even matter who was tortured, if he was gulty of a crime or a poor victim of a psycho.

One thing I noticed on this thread, people relates planning with lawfulness. That's a mistake, you can create complex plans regardless of your aligment, what defines the capacity of an idividual to make complex and working plans is the intellect. Check AD&D 2nd edition Combat and tactics for a reference, last chapter was about creatures in combat, and it was about how does a creature fights according to its aligment and its intelligence score. Lawful creatures fight in groups and prefer tactics involving cooperation while chaotic (this one is for you Worira) creatures prefer tactics that invloves exploiting their individual power. Creatures with low inteligence fight instinctively, rhose with average intelligence ussually fight according to what they know about their enemies and can change the way they fight if the situation calls for it, creatures with high intelligence scores always have a plan, or two, they try to read the enemy and change the plan if needed.

The Consequences of an act don't matter? What are you babbling about? the Consequences define the act. I kill a rich old king mad with power who tortures and murders on a regular basis. I should be thrown in jail, instead of welcomed as a hero for defeating such a monster. Of course.

Dervag
2008-11-07, 05:58 PM
BS. Moving on. Evey forgived him because he was V, not because he kept her hostage.Stockholm Syndrome is in fact documented.

Did you hear about the Elizabeth Smart case recently?
_____

And I still say it's wrong to put somebody through deprivation, beatings, and interrogations for the sake of brainwashing them into becoming your ally.

hobgadling
2008-11-07, 07:28 PM
To me, V is most definitely not chaotic. He is a not a random character, wont to follow his whims. Rather, he has a goal, and for that matter a code of conduct. Just because he doesn't follow societies rules doesn't mean he's chaotic. According to the PHB, his alignment seems to fit most under lawful neutral, or maybe a very light lawful evil. His personal code is anarchy, and he follows it strictly. Every single one of his carefully calculated actions are towards the end of bringing his form of society to the fore. The anarchy that V strives for is not a lack of rules, but rather the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. As such, chaotic he is not. He could possibly be considered true neutral, but for his dedication to his own code of conduct, I would place him in the lawful neutral category (maybe nudging towards lawful evil.)



Oh, and Coplantor, according the the PHB you can't create complex plans regardless of your alignment. It only explicitly states this in the Chaotic Evil text, but you can assume that this is the same for all of the chaotic alignments.

Copacetic
2008-11-07, 07:48 PM
Stockholm Syndrome is in fact documented.

Did you hear about the Elizabeth Smart case recently?
_____

And I still say it's wrong to put somebody through deprivation, beatings, and interrogations for the sake of brainwashing them into becoming your ally.

I'm not talking about Stockholm being BS; I'm saying it is not rational in this situation. She was being tortured by (to her) Unknown government agents, not V.

It is wrong, yes. But V is still Chaotic Neutral, In my Opinion.

Doomsy
2008-11-07, 07:54 PM
Ewoks are Varelse. Well played.

Also working with evil people does reflect back on yourself and screws with your own alignment. You work with cannibals that shows how low your own morality goes. A better person or organization would refuse the help of evil things because they stand for better things. By EEs standard is perfectly okay to have a cannibal on your side in combat because hey, that does not reflect on you.

Er. Yes, yes it does. Because now you are the guy who hangs out with the guy who eats people. No matter how many babies you rescue, people are going to remember more about the ones he eats. And the fact you were with him. Even if you discouraging him, you're still pretty much in the same boat. Now, *stopping him*, yes, that would be scads better. A bit cold blooded after using him for your own ends, but morally cleaner.

weenie
2008-11-07, 08:06 PM
He should have killed everyone who thinks they need to post copy their name to the bottom of every one of their posts.

QFF(the second f stands for fun)

Mushroom Ninja
2008-11-07, 09:32 PM
She was brainwashed by him, she's probably evil too at that time of the movie/comic.


Wait a moment... What? What evidence do you have of Evey being Evil?

hamishspence
2008-11-08, 04:56 AM
BoED says you can work with someone evil...but you can't let them DO anything evil. You witness them torture someone- you must step in to stop it, and so on. "the enemy of my enemy is my ally, if not my friend"

paddyfool
2008-11-08, 05:25 AM
He is a not a random character, wont to follow his whims. Rather, he has a goal, and for that matter a code of conduct. Just because he doesn't follow societies rules doesn't mean he's chaotic.

The chaotic traits you describe here seem to me to stem from the often derided "Chaotic Crazy" example of bad roleplaying. Yes, some people play Chaos like that, and some Chaotic characters are indeed crazy - but there's nothing to say they have to be. Let me quote you a big chunk of text from the SRD:


Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.


The main traits of the two sides come up at the top of the article. Law "implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability ... can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability", whereas Chaos "implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility... can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. " Nothing there about not having a personal code, or not being able to plan.

V was all about freedom, adapted himself to a totally unusual lifestyle to enable his actions, was reckless, showed resentment towards any authority, and behaved with a shedload of irresponsibility. Maybe he could be a tad inflexible in his own way, and the only arbitrary action he was seen to do was rescue Evey, but does he really sound more Lawful to you than Chaotic? To me, he's just one more interesting Chaotic character, alongside House, Joker, Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds, Lord Shojo, etc. (and more chaotic even than most of them). Not all Chaotic characters have to be as one-dimensional as the Belkster...

Handsome Rob
2008-11-08, 07:19 AM
*anything*

FYI: you spelt "elitist" wrong.

Fostire
2008-11-08, 09:35 AM
FYI: you spelt "elitist" wrong.

FYI: That's intentional

Riffington
2008-11-08, 09:56 AM
She was being tortured by (to her) Unknown government agents, not V.


The Stockholm Syndrome is a very useful technique in brainwashing. The kidnappers do not merely abuse their victim (indiscriminate abuse is counterproductive). What they do by the abuse is create a situation where the victim needs human contact- and then provide that contact themselves.
V provided that contact in written form from Valerie, while keeping the "government" faceless. This technique was useful in causing Evey to bond with V's side; simply revealing the truth is not powerful enough to overcome the kinds of feelings this (and a few other brainwashing techniques V used) are able to create.

hobgadling
2008-11-08, 02:31 PM
V was all about freedom, adapted himself to a totally unusual lifestyle to enable his actions, was reckless, showed resentment towards any authority, and behaved with a shedload of irresponsibility. Maybe he could be a tad inflexible in his own way, and the only arbitrary action he was seen to do was rescue Evey, but does he really sound more Lawful to you than Chaotic? To me, he's just one more interesting Chaotic character, alongside House, Joker, Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds, Lord Shojo, etc. (and more chaotic even than most of them). Not all Chaotic characters have to be as one-dimensional as the Belkster...

V was definitely not reckless. Unless you're looking at the movie. In the movie, he was reckless at times, but in the book he knew exactly what the consequences of his actions were going to be, and was cautious throughout. I would be curious how you think he is irresponsible. I couldn't really think of anything either way. He was not all about freedom, although that was one of the things he supported. He was about anarchy. Here is a little passage of the book that I think illustrates the difference.

"Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order.' With anarchy comes an age of Ordnung, or true order, which is to say voluntary order."

Thus, the reason I say he is lawful is that he follows his own personal code, a code of anarchy. Here is something from the SRD that shows why I think this means he should be lawful (or at least lawful neutral).

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Of course, this is just for lawful neutral. For the lawful vs. chaos dispute, he does seem more lawful, but the actual lawful neutral alignment seems to stray away from the definition of lawful as a following of authority, and more towards lawful as a following of a personal code. As such, I would attribute him to lawful neutral, and his personal code as anarchy.

EvilElitest
2008-11-08, 05:17 PM
It's naivete like this that allows those with power to exercise it without consequence.

Governments aren't automatically noble or good. They, like the human beings that run them, tend toward self interest.

Thats not my quote, that the movie tagline


EE, it's become obvious at this point that you're throwing everyone else's points away out of hand. Stop arguing if you're not even going to concede the possibility that you're wrong.

Isn't this hypocritical? Have you conceded the possibility of being wrong? Haven't you thrown my points out of hand by not responding to my points? How can you possibly accuse me when i've had the decency to actually address your statements while you are not. If you disagree fine, but resorting to personal attacks is just plain childish. But if you want to tell your self that your somehow justified in unfounded accusations go ahead.


Have it your way, at the price of the disrespect of me and more than a few other forum members.

If you are going to get worked up over something so absurdly petty, i honestly don't think your respect is worth anything to me.


You missed my point. Killing the goblin to stop him from stabbing a a two-year old grl in the face is different from killling him for his coat. I.E. Actions can be identical with alignment changes.


And killing him eve after he surrenders is also evil. Or killing him to further your own goals. Or killing him simply because he is in your way.


HJow many people would consent to torture? Evey before hand would not have, but post-torture Evey would rather "Die behind the chemical shed" than give up V. Even better, Evey forgives him at the end of it. Stealing a candy bar from a friend? Evil. But giving it back, and they forgive you, and everyone is a better person because of it? Less Evil.

Her forgiveness means nothing, he still committed the act without her consent? The fact that he needed to resort to brutality, torture, and abuse to brainwash her into becoming a his zealous follower is in its self evil.


1) Incorrectimeundue. In the U.S. system of Law, we have different judges to interpret the Consititution. If it was completely clear and everyone interpretted it perfectly, Judges would not be neccesary. But this is dragging Real-wordl politics in here, so I'm going to stop there. but the point is that Your Personal morals affect your interpretation of the rules, and my morals affect my interpretation of the rules as well.

No, your basing all of your arguments upon the real life ideal of utilitarianism, an ideal that D&D's alignment system of good and evil specifically rejects. Every one of your justifications relies upon the ideal, despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support your claims. Your not trying to prove V is not evil according to D&D rules, your trying to justify his actions based upon your real life moral options, which has nothing to do with D&D morality, which is absolute. Again, i remind you that in D&D, ends do not justify the means


2)A couple of things:

First: "...Every time he resorts to Evil, that is an evil act..." The Heck? What are you saying here?

Um, yeah. Every time V does an evil act, regardless of his motives or the results, he has officially committed one evil act closer to bringing him to evil. As he has committed a lot of evil acts, and generally doesn't act very good (No mercy, no forgiveness ect, no actual attempt to make a stable more happy government) he is certainly evil by now


Second: The refusing mercy bit? Say he says " Oh alright, come along. I'll just throw you in a jail cell". What do you think happens? the Evil government CONTROL the Jail cells. They'd be out in five seconds, and back to raping cute little puppies again. Everytime he kills an innocent? Collateral damage. Hence why he is not evi

D&D is absolute, and in D&D both killing an innocent under any circumstances or refusing a surrender are absolutely evil, regardless of the situation or results. Part of being good is the higher standard. V obviously owns his own set of jails under his manner (Evey's torture) he can keep people who surrender there, and when you kill innocents as acceptable collateral damage


Third: Last, Grey Hands (or whatever they are called) are basically murdering machines. No kindness, no redemming Evil-doeers. But they are still good.
what?


Watch me. Do you think Evey was agaisn't the government? Do you think she hated it, like everyone else? Now she had the will to fight it to her last breath. And she didn't do his bidding. She wasn't a servant. She did excatly what she wanted to do( Take down The BBEG *hinthint*). Also, please stop inpretetting the rules that way. Torture is not always evil. It is your interpertation.
1) D&D, torture is always evil (with the possible exception of Bondage). BoED, it is a rule. Stop evading it.
2) Yeah she did, she helped him blow up the building and takes his place after his death. Basically
3) So its evil when V tortures people to "have the will to fight" but its not evil when the government tortures people to "have to will to serve their country"? By your standard (you know, the one without the D&D support)


Always, more proof he is Neutral.

Wait a second, taking a person away, against their will, torturing them until they become so emotionally scarred taht they are willing to fight to the death for your cause, and not giving her a choice in how she wants to live her own life is neutral? Despite the fact that torture is described in D&D as an absolute evil act?



V avoids killing innocents when possible. He also has the commitment to help others, as shown by him saving Evey from rape. And he is commited to Evey throgh personnal relationship.
1) but he still kills them, evi
2) But not enough to try to make her join him in the conventual manner, or say, let her have a choice in the matter. yeah, really cares about her eh?




I'd say that the ewoks where just killing for survival, the way an animal hunts for food. As such I would classify them as neutral. I don't think the ewoks had the brains to realize that they where eating intelligent beings.
They were eating as part of a ritual i think. Anyways, mindflayers are evil for eating humans it is worth noting


BS. Moving on. Evey forgived him because he was V, not because he kept her hostage
Irrelevant, torturing her without her consent is still evil, and trying to "enlighten her" to his way of thinking is just hubris


The Consequences of an act don't matter? What are you babbling about? the Consequences define the act. I kill a rich old king mad with power who tortures and murders on a regular basis. I should be thrown in jail, instead of welcomed as a hero for defeating such a monster. Of course.
1) In D&D, evil ends do not justify the means
2) Depends, did you kill him as he tried to murder you, or did you kill him as he begged for his life
3) Jail is a mortal term, its sentence varies from kingdom to kingdom



Also working with evil people does reflect back on yourself and screws with your own alignment. You work with cannibals that shows how low your own morality goes. A better person or organization would refuse the help of evil things because they stand for better things. By EEs standard is perfectly okay to have a cannibal on your side in combat because hey, that does not reflect on you.

Er. Yes, yes it does. Because now you are the guy who hangs out with the guy who eats people. No matter how many babies you rescue, people are going to remember more about the ones he eats. And the fact you were with him. Even if you discouraging him, you're still pretty much in the same boat. Now, *stopping him*, yes, that would be scads better. A bit cold blooded after using him for your own ends, but morally cleaner.
In Book of Exalted deeds they give an example of a group of paladins working with evil drow to kill other evil creatures (i think it was mindflayers) Working with them isn't an evil act, because they just happen to be evil. However, if the good person sees them commit or attempt to commit an evil action, and don't do anything about it, then the good person's alignment will be affected. The rebel alliance never (at least in the movie) never fed the Ewoks humans soly or murdered people on their behalf


FYI: you spelt "elitist" wrong.
oh bugger really? oh i never noticed, damn thats embarrassing :smallbiggrin:. its on purpose, don't worry
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-11-08, 06:33 PM
D&D is absolute, and in D&D both killing an innocent under any circumstances or refusing a surrender are absolutely evil, regardless of the situation or results. Part of being good is the higher standard. V obviously owns his own set of jails under his manner (Evey's torture) he can keep people who surrender there, and when you kill innocents as acceptable collateral damage


What if the villian sets a bomb that will go off unless he is killed in 24 hours and he asks for surrender just before you kill him? If you kill him to stop the bomb is it evil becuase he surrendered or is it not evil because by not deactivating the bomb he hasn't really surrendered?

Does the surreneder cluase only extend to uncondtional surreneder of the enemy or does it extend to any conditions of surrender regaurdless of how absurd they might be (i.e. I surrender, but only if you stab youself in the face)?

EvilElitest
2008-11-08, 06:43 PM
What if the villian sets a bomb that will go off unless he is killed in 24 hours and he asks for surrender just before you kill him? If you kill him to stop the bomb is it evil becuase he surrendered or is it not evil because by not deactivating the bomb he hasn't really surrendered?

Find me a more plausible situation. I mean, if a DM goes out of his way to force the PCs into a situation where they only have two possible choices, then the idea of free will has already been eliminated.



Does the surreneder cluase only extend to uncondtional surreneder of the enemy or does it extend to any conditions of surrender regaurdless of how absurd they might be (i.e. I surrender, but only if you stab youself in the face)?
Depends on the conditions. If somebody said that, the paladin should say in response "no i won't, do you want to surrender" if the person then says he isn't going to, then he has effectivily not surrendered.
from
EE

Doomsy
2008-11-08, 07:04 PM
They were not killing for ritual. They were preparing them like Christmas dinner and actually ignoring their god telling them to stop doing that. Aside from my Ewok derailment I do have a comment to make on the ongoing V thing.

Look up 'Lima Syndrome' and apply that V vs his 'hostage'. I currently do not believe we actually have a syndrome yet for the situation where the hostage taker has Lima Syndrome and his hostage has Stockholms.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-08, 07:19 PM
Find me a more plausible situation. I mean, if a DM goes out of his way to force the PCs into a situation where they only have two possible choices, then the idea of free will has already been eliminated.


Better Example: Bad Guy sets up a city destroying bomb in city of 4million that is to detonate in 24 hours and he tells the heroes the location of the bomb. Analysis of the bomb shows that if Bad Guy is killed the bomb will automatically shut off, however any attemp to disable the bomb by other means has a 10% chance of successfully disarming the bomb, a 40% chance of not affecting the bomb at all, a 20% chance of cutting the timer speed in half, a 20% chance of doubling the timer speed, and a 10% chance of detonating the bomb (however more information could increase the chance of success).

The bomb will take 3 hours to disable bomb by any method other than killing Bad Guy and 1 million civillians are evacuated from the city every 8 hours and anyone left in the city when the bomb goes off will die. The heroes capture Bad Guy after only 1 hour, but he surrenders without telling them anything useful. In the 20 hours they have before they must start disabling the bomb they have little, but not zero, chance of Bad Guy giving them any information.

What is least evil course of action?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-08, 07:40 PM
What is least evil course of action?Dominate Person. Though at lower levels, yeah, it would be a very rough situation for a Paladin.

Doomsy
2008-11-08, 08:09 PM
Better Example: Bad Guy sets up a city destroying bomb in city of 4million that is to detonate in 24 hours and he tells the heroes the location of the bomb. Analysis of the bomb shows that if Bad Guy is killed the bomb will automatically shut off, however any attemp to disable the bomb by other means has a 10% chance of successfully disarming the bomb, a 40% chance of not affecting the bomb at all, a 20% chance of cutting the timer speed in half, a 20% chance of doubling the timer speed, and a 10% chance of detonating the bomb (however more information could increase the chance of success).

The bomb will take 3 hours to disable bomb by any method other than killing Bad Guy and 1 million civillians are evacuated from the city every 8 hours and anyone left in the city when the bomb goes off will die. The heroes capture Bad Guy after only 1 hour, but he surrenders without telling them anything useful. In the 20 hours they have before they must start disabling the bomb they have little, but not zero, chance of Bad Guy giving them any information.

What is least evil course of action?

Least evil? I fail to see how executing the man early for his crimes is actually evil or illegal.

He has over a thousand charges of attempted murders and worse. Killing him will save many lives but his own is already over. He is a dead man already. While he obviously wishes to die and has made this an elaborate suicide plan, there is nothing inherently immoral in executing capital offenders or assisting suicide. There is not even an ethical quandary here - he wants to die, you need him dead to save other lives. I don't even think it is murder.

I mean, if he did not want to die he would not have the off-trigger so obvious and so easily done. So this is clearly suicide by paladin. Send him off.

Other options? Put the bomb in a bag of holding. Just grab the bomb and run. Etc, etc. 24 hours is a long time, man. And a city of that many people? Like the above poster said, Dominate Person. A mage knowing it and at high level is statistically certain in a city that size.

Copacetic
2008-11-08, 08:18 PM
{Scrubbed}





1)


Her forgiveness means nothing, he still committed the act without her consent? The fact that he needed to resort to brutality, torture, and abuse to brainwash her into becoming a his zealous follower is in its self evil.
Look! Quick, Look! It's my point! Aww, Too late, you missed it. This is a positive experience for Evey. No, don't even say "Hurr Hurr raly iI dint no totrure was goood for u ill try it lulz." Over all, it strengthened her willpower, and her Pre-Exisiting Hatred to the BBEG.




No, your basing all of your arguments upon the real life ideal of utilitarianism, an ideal that D&D's alignment system of good and evil specifically rejects. Every one of your justifications relies upon the ideal, despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support your claims. Your not trying to prove V is not evil according to D&D rules, your trying to justify his actions based upon your real life moral options, which has nothing to do with D&D morality, which is absolute. Again, i remind you that in D&D, ends do not justify the means

I'm not even going to say anything here, as you obviously are hand-waving all the points of my post.



Um, yeah. Every time V does an evil act, regardless of his motives or the results, he has officially committed one evil act closer to bringing him to evil. As he has committed a lot of evil acts, and generally doesn't act very good (No mercy, no forgiveness ect, no actual attempt to make a stable more happy government) he is certainly evil by now


Eish, you are not very good at this, are you? Evil acts=Evil acts. I thought this was established.


D&D is absolute, and in D&D both killing an innocent under any circumstances or refusing a surrender are absolutely evil, regardless of the situation or results. Part of being good is the higher standard. V obviously owns his own set of jails under his manner (Evey's torture) he can keep people who surrender there, and when you kill innocents as acceptable collateral damage


Sure, we'll just stop to drag every baddy who surrenders back to his bat cave jail them, feed them, and take care of them. and then he can go back to his plots to bring down the LE government. If V stopped to do that every time someone surrdered, he would be very, very, very dead. Killing the goblin to save the child is diffferent from killing him for coat. Situation and Circumstances MATTER.



1) D&D, torture is always evil (with the possible exception of Bondage). BoED, it is a rule. Stop evading it.
2) Yeah she did, she helped him blow up the building and takes his place after his death. Basically
3) So its evil when V tortures people to "have the will to fight" but its not evil when the government tortures people to "have to will to serve their country"? By your standard (you know, the one without the D&D support)


1) Fine, I can see I'm banding my head agaisn't a a block of stone here. I concede my point. Torture IS evil. So stop yammering on about it, please.
2) Oh yeah, she also filled his nails and did his laundry. Basically. She helped him fight the governemnt, Evey was no one's servant.
3) Do the soliders forgive their captors? Do any one of them turn around and hug the guy? No, they do not.



1) He tres to avoid killing them, Neutral by the SRD.
2) She had a choice. She could have turned him over at any point during the movie, probably for considerable reward. Except she didn't. Again, V was re-enforcing a pre-existing concept.

[QUOTE=EE]Irrelevant, torturing her without her consent is still evil, and trying to "enlighten her" to his way of thinking is just hubris

He isn't "enlightening" anyone. Evey already hates the government. V's is making her hate them more.


petty
annnoyance

EvilElitest
2008-11-09, 12:57 AM
Better Example: Bad Guy sets up a city destroying bomb in city of 4million that is to detonate in 24 hours and he tells the heroes the location of the bomb. Analysis of the bomb shows that if Bad Guy is killed the bomb will automatically shut off, however any attemp to disable the bomb by other means has a 10% chance of successfully disarming the bomb, a 40% chance of not affecting the bomb at all, a 20% chance of cutting the timer speed in half, a 20% chance of doubling the timer speed, and a 10% chance of detonating the bomb (however more information could increase the chance of success).

The bomb will take 3 hours to disable bomb by any method other than killing Bad Guy and 1 million civillians are evacuated from the city every 8 hours and anyone left in the city when the bomb goes off will die. The heroes capture Bad Guy after only 1 hour, but he surrenders without telling them anything useful. In the 20 hours they have before they must start disabling the bomb they have little, but not zero, chance of Bad Guy giving them any information.

What is least evil course of action?

your doing it again. Again you making an absolute situation where the variables are functioning upon an absolute basis. IE, a perfect world, where the options are very railroaded. Again, you need more detail (like how a bomb i disarmed if the bad guy dies). through i do have to ask, if the BG knows that the bomb will go off and he will die, why does he bother surrendering in the first place?


{Scrubbed}


1) Doesn't matter, the act of torture without consent is defined as an absolute evil in D&D, stop trying to evade that
2) How the hell is that good for her? She was brutally treated, abused, humliated, eating crap food and living in horrible conditions for god knows how long, until she is emotionally scarred to the point that she doesn't believe her life matters any more. How is that for her own good? Oh sure, its for V's own good, because she's fight for him, but what about her own good? Where was her free will, her freedom of choice, her ability to deiced what to do with her own life?


I'm not even going to say anything here, as you obviously are hand-waving all the points of my post.

I love the double standard. Despite my massive post where i address your points, you accuse me of hand waving them. Fine, provided you could point out why, if i really did handwave them, it should be no trouble for you to point out how obviously flawed my arguments are, but then you say taht your not going to even grace my points with a response? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, i'm glad your the more responsible of the two of us.


Eish, you are not very good at this, are you? Evil acts=Evil acts. I thought this was established.
and evil acts=Evil person. And evil acts include torture, murder of innocents, harming others, refusing mercy ect. Your point?


Sure, we'll just stop to drag every baddy who surrenders back to his bat cave jail them, feed them, and take care of them. and then he can go back to his plots to bring down the LE government. If V stopped to do that every time someone surrdered, he would be very, very, very dead. Killing the goblin to save the child is diffferent from killing him for coat. Situation and Circumstances MATTER.
1) Yeah, thats part of being good, having responsibility. Or are you saying taht their life has no meaning? That because they happened to fight you their life loses value and isn't worth as much as yours? Regardless, in D&D the killing of people who surrender is considered murder and that is an absolute
2) Not in D&D, were morality is absolute. In D&D, that doesn't matter, because it is established ends don't justify the means (BoED, BoVD, FF ect ect ect)




1) Fine, I can see I'm banding my head agaisn't a a block of stone here. I concede my point. Torture IS evil. So stop yammering on about it, please.
2) Oh yeah, she also filled his nails and did his laundry. Basically. She helped him fight the governemnt, Evey was no one's servant.
3) Do the soliders forgive their captors? Do any one of them turn around and hug the guy? No, they do not.
1) No a block of stone, the rules, which are absolute.
2) She did what he wanted her to do in his plans, and most importantly kept on his fight when he was finished, she was certainly his pawn
3a) From what we can gather, the people who were tortured by the government "learned their lesson" and settled down and lived their lives as proper citizeins
3b) which again begs the question, under what standard can V be not evil and the government be evil?



1) He tres to avoid killing them, Neutral by the SRD.
2) She had a choice. She could have turned him over at any point during the movie, probably for considerable reward. Except she didn't. Again, V was re-enforcing a pre-existing concept.

1) Not in D&D, murdering somebody in D&D is evil, not neutral
2) thats not a bloody choice, did V give her a chance to chose how to live her life? Did he give her the opportunity to choose how to live her life? No, he kidnapped her and put her in a cell


He isn't "enlightening" anyone. Evey already hates the government. V's is making her hate them more.
And made her in his successor, to do what he wanted her to do, yeah thats nice
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 01:30 AM
Least evil? I fail to see how executing the man early for his crimes is actually evil or illegal.

He has over a thousand charges of attempted murders and worse. Killing him will save many lives but his own is already over. He is a dead man already. While he obviously wishes to die and has made this an elaborate suicide plan, there is nothing inherently immoral in executing capital offenders or assisting suicide. There is not even an ethical quandary here - he wants to die, you need him dead to save other lives. I don't even think it is murder.

I mean, if he did not want to die he would not have the off-trigger so obvious and so easily done. So this is clearly suicide by paladin. Send him off.

Other options? Put the bomb in a bag of holding. Just grab the bomb and run. Etc, etc. 24 hours is a long time, man. And a city of that many people? Like the above poster said, Dominate Person. A mage knowing it and at high level is statistically certain in a city that size.

Isn't killing a surrenderee evil per the written rules of Dungeons and Dragons? I don't think you have to convince Draco_Dracul that the rules of DnD aren't necessarily the most good option, but that seems to be what he's arguing against.

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 01:36 AM
Isn't killing a surrenderee evil per the written rules of Dungeons and Dragons? I don't think you have to convince Draco_Dracul that the rules of DnD aren't necessarily the most good option, but that seems to be what he's arguing against.

I think that is bullcrap because that means you can never execute prisoners even if they ate a baby and pose an insanely dangerous threat to guards and other prisoners alike. It would make executions of any kind all evil, which would totally ruin a lawful good government.

Medieval ages, even fantasy ones, don't keep huge prisons like we do.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 02:01 AM
I think that is bullcrap because that means you can never execute prisoners even if they ate a baby and pose an insanely dangerous threat to guards and other prisoners alike. It would make executions of any kind all evil, which would totally ruin a lawful good government.

Medieval ages, even fantasy ones, don't keep huge prisons like we do.

Well, I'm glad we agree. Dungeons and Dragons rules simply don't account for all that much, and it's probably for the best, in figuring out how morality. I wished to point out that you may have been missing the point in the argument, is all.

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 02:19 AM
Well, I'm glad we agree. Dungeons and Dragons rules simply don't account for all that much, and it's probably for the best, in figuring out how morality. I wished to point out that you may have been missing the point in the argument, is all.

Oh. We had a difference of point of order, I think. My opinion is that such a villain is obviously suicidal and could, from a very tenuous ethical point of view, always be treated as armed given his concept, and thus killing them is not really alignment shattering - it is win win. If you have captured them it is just leaping to the end of a trial that is already cut and dried. You have 24 hours so you can probably get the king to sign a writ of execution as well. It's not really a huge deal morally or ethically. If he'd put the bomb trigger in say, an innocent nine year old girl?

Yeah, that's nightmare fuel overtime issues and a much more complex moral issue.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-09, 02:22 AM
Yeah, that's nightmare fuel overtime issues and a much more complex moral issue.That's one I don't get. Kill a child, save a thousand children. Save a child, kill a thousand children. Where's the dilemma?

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 02:33 AM
That's one I don't get. Kill a child, save a thousand children. Save a child, kill a thousand children. Where's the dilemma?

Villain does it, he has it coming and is possibly literally asking for it - suicide by cop, basically, especially given the rules of the game - telling the location of the bomb, putting its only reliable stopper tied to his life force, etc.

Villain makes someone innocent the trigger it is much more uncomfortable. You might have to go through with it but you ain't gonna sleep good for a long while.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-09, 02:51 AM
Villain makes someone innocent the trigger it is much more uncomfortable. You might have to go through with it but you ain't gonna sleep good for a long while.Speak for yourself. Of course, I am probably CN, but I'll sleep knowing I saved a thousand lives, not worrying about the one I couldn't.

paddyfool
2008-11-09, 09:28 AM
V was definitely not reckless. Unless you're looking at the movie. In the movie, he was reckless at times, but in the book he knew exactly what the consequences of his actions were going to be, and was cautious throughout. I would be curious how you think he is irresponsible. I couldn't really think of anything either way. He was not all about freedom, although that was one of the things he supported. He was about anarchy. Here is a little passage of the book that I think illustrates the difference.

"Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order.' With anarchy comes an age of Ordnung, or true order, which is to say voluntary order."



Being without leaders also promotes individual freedom - and Ordnung depends on people volunteering to behave in an orderly manner, rather than having laws that compel them to be so. Reckless - on the one hand, he worked out what he was going to do in great detail. But the plans he made and the things he did involved a great deal of dangerous, risk-taking behaviour, no matter how much he thought them through. Irresponsible - first meaning from Webster is "not answerable to higher authority ". And he recognised no outside authority to limit his own individual action, while also placing very few if any limits on it himself, just so long as he achieved his goals. So yes, he was irresponsible. Heroically so.


Thus, the reason I say he is lawful is that he follows his own personal code, a code of anarchy. Here is something from the SRD that shows why I think this means he should be lawful (or at least lawful neutral).

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Eh... I don't think the definition of a "personal code" under LN applies to V's ideals. You see, I think that kind of code is about a person choosing to place very particular, but not directly morally loaded, restrictions on their individual behaviour; for instance, the sort of thing a monk or a knight might follow. Whereas V has very strong ideals and goals, but places no immediate restrictions on the manner in which he pursues them other than restrictions expressly chosen to meet the goals (living alone in secrecy, for instance). All of which fits chaos better than law.


Of course, this is just for lawful neutral. For the lawful vs. chaos dispute, he does seem more lawful,

Surely you mean "does not" here?


but the actual lawful neutral alignment seems to stray away from the definition of lawful as a following of authority, and more towards lawful as a following of a personal code. As such, I would attribute him to lawful neutral, and his personal code as anarchy.

See above. He has strong beliefs and ideals (as, indeed, a chaotic follower of a chaotic deity might do - see Helga) but does not have a strict code of behaviour. Anarchy for him is not a code of behaviour, but a political and social ideal, one based on personal freedom, and the absence of leaders, regulations, and Law. Therefore, Chaos fits him vastly better than Law. None of the individual chaotic alignments as described in the SRD give a very exact fit not because Chaos doesn't fit but because he has multiple motivations both G and E (the idealistic promotion of anarchy for the common good on the one hand, vs revenge on the other), making him morally conflicted, which probably fits best with Neutral even if he isn't really as CN is described. So that's where I'd put him.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 09:44 AM
pose an insanely dangerous threat to guards and other prisoners alike.


If they are just wearing some chains and staying around because they feel like it, but can in fact still use powerful magics, then they aren't really a prisoner.



It would make executions of any kind all evil, which would totally ruin a lawful good government.


That one's a can of worms, but in D&D, lawful good government can have executions or not have them. If they have executions preceded by good trials, then those executions are neutral acts.

Fostire
2008-11-09, 10:09 AM
They were eating as part of a ritual i think. Anyways, mindflayers are evil for eating humans it is worth noting

I don't think the eating other people (for survival) is what makes mindflayers evil. Mindflayers are evil because they torture, murder, mind control people into slavery (see: githyanki and githzerai) and experiment on other intelligent races.

Copacetic
2008-11-09, 11:20 AM
*stuff*


Ugh. I can see that any brand of reasoned logic as no effect on you or your Opinions because they are absolute. Fine.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 03:18 PM
That one's a can of worms, but in D&D, lawful good government can have executions or not have them. If they have executions preceded by good trials, then those executions are neutral acts.

How do you figure? The prisoner is helpless. A trial lends legal legitimacy, true, but how is that related to the good/evil axis?

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 03:29 PM
How do you figure? The prisoner is helpless. A trial lends legal legitimacy, true, but how is that related to the good/evil axis?

One problem in the D&D alignment system is that it tends to consider Law more Good than Chaos. This leads to things like assassination and poison being automatically evil despite the fact that the barring of them is mainly because neither is honorable despite the fact that honor is more a product of Law rather than one of Good.

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 05:19 PM
I think we've all read enough wizard-beats-all threads to know why any functional D&D legal system would have to execute lawbreaking magic users pretty much on the spot. The other containment options are too expensive and too iffy - you'd need shifts of your own wizards, probably AMF tomfoolery, and it is just too damn complex, and if you wait long enough to do a proper trial you run the risk of getting yourself wrecked. I'd say summary execution and then an indepth interrogation of everyone involved. The danger to public safety is too great to allow a magic user the leniency typically offered to people who cannot screw reality at its most base level. You do the trial after the fact.

Option B would be to mind-rape the offender until his/her base personality is erased, then permanently drain their intelligence until they are essentially incapable of comprehending working magic. Of course, you could probably find a way around that too and in my opinion it is even worse than killing someone.

But yeah. D&D tends to strongly associate law with good, which complicates things a lot.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 08:00 PM
How do you figure? The prisoner is helpless. A trial lends legal legitimacy, true, but how is that related to the good/evil axis?

So, legitimacy matters for certain moral questions. Some taxes may be theft, but not all are... if levied by a legitimate authority. If I levy one, it's clearly theft. I may imprison someone only for brief periods; a legitimate authority may imprison someone for years. A legitimate authority has the right to punish; I do not.

The question is whether execution is "the ultimate punishment" or is always wrong. In D&D, the answer seems to be that execution is an appropriate form of punishment for some. The real life answer is a tricky subject - and not one appropriate for this forum.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 08:11 PM
So, legitimacy matters for certain moral questions. Some taxes may be theft, but not all are... if levied by a legitimate authority. If I levy one, it's clearly theft. I may imprison someone only for brief periods; a legitimate authority may imprison someone for years. A legitimate authority has the right to punish; I do not.


legitimate authority has to do with Law vs. Chaos rather than Good vs. Evil.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 08:32 PM
legitimate authority has to do with Law vs. Chaos rather than Good vs. Evil.

Often, but not always.
Certain acts may be Evil when performed by me, but Neutral when performed by a legitimate authority.
(taxes, extended imprisonment, punishment, etc)

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 08:46 PM
So, legitimacy matters for certain moral questions. Some taxes may be theft, but not all are... if levied by a legitimate authority. If I levy one, it's clearly theft. I may imprison someone only for brief periods; a legitimate authority may imprison someone for years. A legitimate authority has the right to punish; I do not.
Folks are arguing RAW here for reasons I do not understand, so I will turn it on its head.

There is no question or allowance for legitimacy in the core book, in regards to murder, or the death of the helpless, or the death of a surrender-ee.



The question is whether execution is "the ultimate punishment" or is always wrong. In D&D, the answer seems to be that execution is an appropriate form of punishment for some. The real life answer is a tricky subject - and not one appropriate for this forum.
I don't intend to argue it for real life. I simply don't care.


(taxes, extended imprisonment, punishment, etc)
Taxes by definition require a government to ask for them. You are not a government. And none of those things gets a pass in the RAW to make them not evil, just because they're done by people who should be doing them.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 08:48 PM
Often, but not always.
Certain acts may be Evil when performed by me, but Neutral when performed by a legitimate authority.
(taxes, extended imprisonment, punishment, etc)

Extended imprisonment and punishment are only Evil if you do them if there is no justification for them, you doing them may be illeagle, but not nessearily Evil.

Tax only exist within a society with a Legitement Authority, otherwise it is either stealling or rent.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 09:02 PM
Extended imprisonment and punishment are only Evil if you do them if there is no justification for them, you doing them may be illeagle, but not nessearily Evil.

Tax only exist within a society with a Legitement Authority, otherwise it is either stealling or rent.

A legitimate authority could non-evilly imprison a pickpocket for two years. You could not.

Taxation is like theft, not rent. There exist many non-evil taxes that would be evil if charged by someone who lacked authority.

So yeah - legitimate authority can easily make the difference between an act being evil and neutral. This is (at least in D&D) the case with regards to execution.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 09:15 PM
A legitimate authority could non-evilly imprison a pickpocket for two years. You could not.
Where is this coming from?


Taxation is like theft, not rent. There exist many non-evil taxes that would be evil if charged by someone who lacked authority.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Taxation is the cost of running government, passed on to its citizens. It's closest to a utility bill.


So yeah - legitimate authority can easily make the difference between an act being evil and neutral. This is (at least in D&D) the case with regards to execution.

You keep saying it does, but you simply say it does; You don't explain how, or why.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 09:21 PM
Taxation is like theft, not rent. There exist many non-evil taxes that would be evil if charged by someone who lacked authority.



Taxation is a cost for living in a country. Rent is cost for living on someone else's property. A king says "This is my country, while you live here you pay money" that is tax. A landlord says "This is my house, while you live here you pay money " that is rent. Yes, tax and rent are nothing alike.:smallwink:

Riffington
2008-11-09, 09:38 PM
But taxes can be levied on things the government does not own.
If the government says "for using this road it costs X", that is a fee, and is like rent.

A few taxes are also like this. But the government can also charge property taxes on land that you owned before the nation was even formed. It can do so without the King owning any portion of your land. It can impose taxes on goods that it does not help produce. Taxes need not pay for anything - they may simply be to make the King rich.

These things need not be Evil, though they would be Evil if you tried to do them.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 09:48 PM
But taxes can be levied on things the government does not own.
If the government says "for using this road it costs X", that is a fee, and is like rent.

A few taxes are also like this. But the government can also charge property taxes on land that you owned before the nation was even formed. It can do so without the King owning any portion of your land. It can impose taxes on goods that it does not help produce. Taxes need not pay for anything - they may simply be to make the King rich.

These things need not be Evil, though they would be Evil if you tried to do them.

A goverment which taxes people for someother reason then keep social servises, defence opperations, or someother goverment program that benifits the people is levying an Evil tax.

Taxes are a fee for living in a country and the right to any social servies the country provides.

If you charged people in exchange for rendering service then you would be a bussness man. If a country charges people in exchange for rendering services then it is a tax. The fact that it is a goverment charging people is what makes it a tax.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 09:54 PM
But taxes can be levied on things the government does not own.
If the government says "for using this road it costs X", that is a fee, and is like rent.

A few taxes are also like this. But the government can also charge property taxes on land that you owned before the nation was even formed. It can do so without the King owning any portion of your land. It can impose taxes on goods that it does not help produce. Taxes need not pay for anything - they may simply be to make the King rich.
I did say it was closer to a utility bill, not that it was a utility bill. Most taxes you see, at least in the modern era, are going to be either sales taxes of some sort, revenue taxes (A Bed tax in a tourist state), or a discouragement tax (Such as the taxes one sees on alcohol and tobacco). These are nothing like theft.


These things need not be Evil, though they would be Evil if you tried to do them.

A tax is neutral on good or evil, like theft, or like a weapon, or most spells. It can be evil, if it's rapacious (Your example of a king using taxes to make himself rich), but there's no reason to assume it's anything but perhaps lawful. And lawful isn't an absolute; A CE ruler who dominates the land and takes money from random peons, calling it a tax, isn't generally being very lawful about it, as there is nothing on these taxes aside from the ruler's whim.

If I did them.. well, they wouldn't be taxes. Property or Income taxes would be straight theft. I'm not a government. Being theft doesn't make them evil, however. Consider if I personally robbed rapacious men who's profits came at the cost of the sufferring of others. A sales tax is simply me making things more expensive, as are revenue or prohibitory taxes. You keep claiming you can make taxes. You can't. You are not a government.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 09:59 PM
A totalitarian government does, anyway.



Are all rich kings evil?

If they take the lions share of the taxes or levy an addtional tax just to make themselves rich then yes they are. If they a relitively small amount of the total tax collected then no as it is basicly a salary paid to the king.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 10:00 PM
sales taxes of some sort, revenue taxes (A Bed tax in a tourist state), or a discouragement tax (Such as the taxes one sees on alcohol and tobacco). These are nothing like theft.


How are any of these different than theft (other than the legitimacy of the State)? The sales tax or revenue tax is a tax on my enterprise, which the government certainly does not own. A discouragement tax is a bit different - it's bullying as well as theft if I do it - but that makes it even less like rent.



And lawful isn't an absolute; A CE ruler who dominates the land and takes money from random peons, calling it a tax, isn't generally being very lawful about it, as there is nothing on these taxes aside from the ruler's whim.
I agree. In this case, the taxes would definitely be chaotic (and likely evil as well).



The goverment owns the country and everything inside it
A totalitarian government does, anyway.



A goverment which taxes people for someother reason then keep social servises, defence opperations, or someother goverment program that benifits the people is levying an Evil tax.

Are all rich kings evil?

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 10:01 PM
And the derailment comes full circle.


Taxes pay for the operation of the government and its services, including salaries of government employees and elected officials, in a democracy.

In a non-democratic autocratic government taxes may damn well go for anything the ruler particularly feels like, as long as the ruler does not piss off enough people to significantly make their chances of having an 'accident' go up. Keep in mind that ruling in non-democratic regimes is both high risk and high reward.

And by the way, a totalitarian government does not own everything inside its borders. You're thinking of communism, which in a practical matter merges business and government. A totalitarian government is merely one that takes your basic rights and generally its own laws and cheerfully violates them in obscene ways while refusing to disclose any of its basic operations, and generally acting in a way best described as 'rampant douchebaggery'. They generally do not nationalize industry but they maintain a very incestuous working relationship with it.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 10:04 PM
You keep claiming you can make taxes. You can't. You are not a government.

But this is *exactly* my point. When the government kills a helpless murderer, it may be an execution and non-evil. When I kill him, it's murder and evil. When the government takes your money, it may be taxation and non-evil; when I take it, it's theft and evil.

Doomsy
2008-11-09, 10:10 PM
But this is *exactly* my point. When the government kills a helpless murderer, it may be an execution and non-evil. When I kill him, it's murder and evil. When the government takes your money, it may be taxation and non-evil; when I take it, it's theft and evil.

You kill one man, it's murder. You kill a million, it's a statistic. Or war. Welcome to Government, Power, and Putting Nice Faces On Things 101.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 10:16 PM
But this is *exactly* my point. When the government kills a helpless murderer, it may be an execution and non-evil. When I kill him, it's murder and evil. When the government takes your money, it may be taxation and non-evil; when I take it, it's theft and evil.

It is murder however wheather it is evil is a profound moral argument that many people disagree on. If a goverment takes your money without rendering any form of service it is evil as it is when I take your money without rendering any form of sevice. If a goverment takes your money and renders some form of service it is non-evil as it is when I take your money and render some form of sevice.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-09, 10:18 PM
How are any of these different than theft (other than the legitimacy of the State)? The sales tax or revenue tax is a tax on my enterprise, which the government certainly does not own. A discouragement tax is a bit different - it's bullying as well as theft if I do it - but that makes it even less like rent.
What makes it different from theft? Quite a bit. Theft goes to the benefit of the thief, generally, and you certainly derive little to no benefit from it. You partake in part of the benefits package attached to taxes. After all, you enjoy the protection of municipal police force. The roads you travel on are predominantly paved, and in good repair. When a criminal is apprehended in your district, he is tried in a court of law. And those are merely the smallest examples of government possible. Further, taxes are generally predicated on something. Income. A purchase. Ownership of land. Theft isn't necessarily predicated on any of these things.

Riffington
2008-11-09, 10:19 PM
It is murder however wheather it is evil is a profound moral argument that many people disagree on. If a goverment takes your money without rendering any form of service it is evil as it is when I take your money without rendering any form of sevice. If a goverment takes your money and renders some form of service it is non-evil as it is when I take your money and render some form of sevice.

What about taking my money to render a service to someone else?
Is that morally different when done by the government than when done by you?

Draco Dracul
2008-11-09, 10:22 PM
What about taking my money to render a service to someone else?
Is that morally different when done by the government than when done by you?

Then I would be a charity.:smallwink:

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-09, 11:38 PM
What about taking my money to render a service to someone else?
Is that morally different when done by the government than when done by you?
Why/how would it be morally different? More specifically, why/how would this make it any more or any less moral?

Legitimate authority is clearly associated with Law, not Good, in D&D's alignment system. And rightly so! Who does something doesn't make the act inherently more benevolent or helpful, nor less malevolent or harmful.

Riffington
2008-11-10, 05:25 AM
Then I would be a charity.:smallwink:

You think it's charitable to take my money and give it to some wizards to help them study owlbears?

It's theft when you do it; it's taxes-as-usual when the government does it.
Can you really tell me that it's not evil when you do it?
Do you really think it's evil when the government does it? (Counterproductive, sure. Evil?)

Heck, just take the idea of ownership. Theft is (almost always) evil. But a legitimate authority can change the rules of ownership slightly; this can change what will and won't be theft, and thus what will and won't be immoral. Not all such changes are moral, but some are.

For example: if a King institutes a law of a Year of Jubilee, then breaking that and keeping the land from its original owner after that Year passes is not only unlawful - it is also evil.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-10, 05:36 PM
You think it's charitable to take my money and give it to some wizards to help them study owlbears?

It's theft when you do it; it's taxes-as-usual when the government does it.
Can you really tell me that it's not evil when you do it?
Do you really think it's evil when the government does it? (Counterproductive, sure. Evil?)

Heck, just take the idea of ownership. Theft is (almost always) evil. But a legitimate authority can change the rules of ownership slightly; this can change what will and won't be theft, and thus what will and won't be immoral. Not all such changes are moral, but some are.

For example: if a King institutes a law of a Year of Jubilee, then breaking that and keeping the land from its original owner after that Year passes is not only unlawful - it is also evil.

If they change the rules of ownership, they have made theft Lawful, not good, not even Non-Evil. No earthly athority can define what is good.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-11-10, 05:41 PM
I'd say V is Neutral Evil. He breaks laws and flaunters order for the purpose of establishing something new (and for his personal vengence) rather than for his personal beliefs.

V himself seems to care little about what will come after him so long as it's different than what came before and everybody who wronged him is dead. He's following his own purposes, which I'd consider neutral self-interest, and he's doing it without regard for the safety of others, which I'd consider definitally evil.

And as a As I guy who collects Pennies for the Guy on Bonfire Night I'd say that Guy Fawkes, on the other hand, was probably a true neutral. He and his fellows planned to do something bad (destory a building and kill alot of people) but they also stopped to consider that there would be innocents harmed in the blast (some historical debate around that as I understand it, that's simply my current understanding.

There's the question of true and percived wrongs there of course so I'd understand the case for Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil as well.

Riffington
2008-11-10, 07:56 PM
If they change the rules of ownership, they have made theft Lawful, not good, not even Non-Evil. No earthly athority can define what is good.

Not define, but influence.
Tell me where you start disagreeing with me in the following:
1. Theft for personal gain is evil.
2. Honest work for personal gain is not evil.
3. Some ways of acquiring goods are theft regardless of what laws a government may pass.
4. Some ways of acquiring goods are not theft regardless of what laws a government may pass.
5. Some ways of acquiring goods may or may not be theft, depending on the laws in effect.

Draco Dracul
2008-11-10, 08:15 PM
Not define, but influence.
Tell me where you start disagreeing with me in the following:
1. Theft for personal gain is evil.
2. Honest work for personal gain is not evil.
3. Some ways of acquiring goods are theft regardless of what laws a government may pass.
4. Some ways of acquiring goods are not theft regardless of what laws a government may pass.
5. Some ways of acquiring goods may or may not be theft, depending on the laws in effect.

At five as all the ways that need legal definition are either good or evil reguardless of wheather or not they are legal.

Riffington
2008-11-10, 09:04 PM
Ok, I am relieved to hear that it's just #5 you disagree with. Perhaps a couple examples might convince you to change your mind.

1. I sell you land for 2000 gp, and come back 5 years later insisting you sell it back to me for 2000 gp. You would rather not sell it back, but I point out that my friend the baron has many knights, and you'd best take my offer.

Now, ten years ago, the King passed a law providing that the original owner of a parcel of land may purchase it back from the new owner for the original purchase price. Doesn't this law change the morality of my taking the land back?

2. Does "we are at war" excuse stealing from the ally of someone who attacked you?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-10, 09:19 PM
Ok, I am relieved to hear that it's just #5 you disagree with. Perhaps a couple examples might convince you to change your mind.

1. I sell you land for 2000 gp, and come back 5 years later insisting you sell it back to me for 2000 gp. You would rather not sell it back, but I point out that my friend the baron has many knights, and you'd best take my offer.

Now, ten years ago, the King passed a law providing that the original owner of a parcel of land may purchase it back from the new owner for the original purchase price. Doesn't this law change the morality of my taking the land back?
No, it really doesn't. Only the legality.


2. Does "we are at war" excuse stealing from the ally of someone who attacked you?

The only reason I have difficulty saying "Yes" unconditionally is due to my ambivalence on modern warfare. Aside from that, certainly; IT's called 'denial of resources'.

That ally is in fact a fighting ally, right?

Coplantor
2008-11-10, 09:24 PM
I keep reading things like "He is lawfull because he has a personal code" or "He is lawful because ha has honor".

Personal codes and honor are no tied to lawfullness, if things were that way, barbarians would'nt be able to have personal codes or honor. Lets think about a thieves guild, they break the law, so we can safely say that in general they are chaotic, yet, they have "honor among thieves" (just like pirates have their honor and they follow "the pirate code") and we can also say that honor is, in a way a personal code.

Doresain
2008-11-11, 02:21 AM
were only doing their job, that is murder

nazis were only doing there job...but killing them was a good thing if im not mistaken

RPGuru1331
2008-11-11, 02:23 AM
nazis were only doing there job...but killing them was a good thing if im not mistaken

You ended the thread. Congratulations on your loss.

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-12, 12:46 PM
1. I sell you land for 2000 gp, and come back 5 years later insisting you sell it back to me for 2000 gp. You would rather not sell it back, but I point out that my friend the baron has many knights, and you'd best take my offer.

Now, ten years ago, the King passed a law providing that the original owner of a parcel of land may purchase it back from the new owner for the original purchase price. Doesn't this law change the morality of my taking the land back?
To the extent that that law does change the morality of coercing me into "selling" the land back, that's because it created within me the expectation that I might be made to sell it back. So the situation isn't a total surprise. It's something I could have planned for, and was given cause to plan for.

But you could have done the same thing by telling me up front, "Hey, I might want to buy this land back from you later. And I'm friends with the baron, and we're already agreed on what's a fair price for this land, obviously, so... I wouldn't plan on hanging on to it forever, y'know?" No legislation needed.

On the other hand, if only you and your little clique of nobles really know about which property laws get passed, and you knew that I almost certainly didn't know about the law, then you're not really behaving any less evilly than if the law weren't there.

So the morally relevant factor is actually whether we had a mutual understanding that I might be made to sell the land back.

Of course, the really moral thing would have been to get me to agree to sell the land back if you wanted me to later. Or to not force me to sell it back, if I didn't so agree. Having warning of what might happen makes forcing this deal on me less immoral, but it's still somewhat immoral, wouldn't you say? You're violating the normal assumption that one gets to choose what to do with one's own property. Selling something, with no caveats, means surrendering it to the buyer's control.

On the other hand, the really moral thing for me to do, if I wanted the option to keep the land, would be to get you to agree not to force me to sell it back. Otherwise, if I choose to keep it over your wishes, I'm violating an implicit understanding created by the warning that I might be made to sell the land back.

Lets make the situation a bit more complicated, now. Suppose that I have warning, but neither of us explicitly agrees to anything but the exchange of land and money, because we'd each rather have a better price than a guarantee of being able to have the land later. Also, I have my own soldiers, and it's well-known that landowners don't always follow royal decrees.

In that case, it's arguably fine for both of us to use violence, because our actual implicit understanding from the beginning was that the matter might well be decided by force of arms. It's a bit harsh on the dudes who get called up to fight, but if that's what they're paid for and what they signed up for, then they're not really being wronged either.

So they fight, until one side becomes convinced that the other isn't going to back down.

hamishspence
2008-11-12, 01:01 PM
Isn't that the whole point of laws and government in the first place- to ensure you won't be at the mercy of another person's whim?

Government has one major service to provide people- restraint- physical force- the use of it, to protect people from private citizens who initiate it.

Courts may also be for resolving disputes of this kind. and if someon rejects courts decision and uses physical force, the police (or army, if its really serious) step in.

Police, army, courts- these are the main things government needs to provide. The rest is extra.

Riffington
2008-11-12, 07:30 PM
To the extent that that law does change the morality of coercing me into "selling" the land back, that's because it created within me the expectation that I might be made to sell it back. So the situation isn't a total surprise. It's something I could have planned for, and was given cause to plan for.

But you could have done the same thing by telling me up front, "Hey, I might want to buy this land back from you later. And I'm friends with the baron, and we're already agreed on what's a fair price for this land, obviously, so... I wouldn't plan on hanging on to it forever, y'know?" No legislation needed.


I'm very glad you noticed this - I was considering whether or not to bring it up. If a law-change occurs prior to the deal, it's basically the same as making the law part of the deal in the first place.

A law-change can also occur after the deal. The assumption, when most people make a deal, is that they will follow the law as it changes over time (except when they are making an illegal deal, obviously). So it may be wrong for me to change the terms of the deal unilaterally, wrong for me to influence the King to change the law to my benefit, but fine for me to reap the benefits of a new law.

hamishspence
2008-11-13, 02:51 PM
might depend on if law is moral or not- Lets say the law that killing in self-defense is legal (must be pretty clear immediate threat to life) was repealed- clauses put in that any killing, no matter the reason, by non-govenmental employees, was murder.

Wouldn't that be an "immoral" law?

And might laws that effectively legalize theft be similar- it may be the law, but still morally wrong?

This is a very Chaotic viewpoint- but its a classic one- that when law and morality start to dirverge widely, law can become immoral, and following it, or taking advantage of it, also immoral.

The big question is- when can "enforced contract" laws become immoral? And how far does it have to go, for a law to be defined as "legalizing theft"?