A Practical Guide to Evil

[Excession]

Spoiler

Show

I was thinking something like that, yes. Something like the Shadow Queen, perhaps? Or the Spymaster

Spoiler

Show

I'm expecting simply Queen of Callow, but Black Queen might still be an option. Either way she would be directly usurping Cat's position. That might lead to a bit of drama, but Cat was never a very good monarch and I think she knows that now.

[The Glyphstone]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

So I definitely missed something, because I have no idea when or how Amadeus lost his Name. Did Saint cut it out of him? Did the Gods take it away because he wasn't playing by the rules of the story?

[Aotrs Commander]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

So I definitely missed something, because I have no idea when or how Amadeus lost his Name. Did Saint cut it out of him? Did the Gods take it away because he wasn't playing by the rules of the story?

Spoiler: epilogue

Show

Last interlude, when we saw him captured? Pilgrim noted he couldn't sense any Name power within him, the implication being that Amadeus had burned it out (how do you even do that) doing the whole Lead thing excessively.

[Forum Explorer]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

The thing I'm worried about is that Amadeus will be a claimant and so will Cat. They both recently lost their 'role' and they both are basically on team evil and most importantly they both have similar methods.

[Iruka]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

So I definitely missed something, because I have no idea when or how Amadeus lost his Name. Did Saint cut it out of him? Did the Gods take it away because he wasn't playing by the rules of the story?

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

According to the Bard, he deviated too much from his role.

“You don’t fit that groove anymore,” Marguerite said. “Powerless you ain’t, Maddie. You know what you are, deep down, you just think it’s beneath you.”

But she says whatever furthers her goals and seems intent on pushing him towards Dread Emperor.

[Cikomyr]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

According to the Bard, he deviated too much from his role.

“You don’t fit that groove anymore,” Marguerite said. “Powerless you ain’t, Maddie. You know what you are, deep down, you just think it’s beneath you.”

But she says whatever furthers her goals and seems intent on pushing him towards Dread Emperor.

Actually, thematically, i think...

Spoiler

Show

Amadeus is the opposite to the Wandering Bard.

He is the Storybreaker

[GrayDeath]

Spoiler: Amadeus Role/Name

Show

Nah, thats what he fancies himself, but given the difference inA ge, Power and the fact he gets his Powers from only one side....nah.

I think he will have to go for a more peaceful" name. Truly a Cancellor Variety might be the way to go, if not necessarily THAT exact name. I mean look at most of the stuff he did, his time as a blunt isntrument of War (or even a sharp one) was mostly past. A Leader still, but not necessarily a fighter. Thats why he might think it "beneath" him....^^

[The Glyphstone]

Spoiler

Show

He might go for the tower this time. Its clear Malicia is not the same woman she was twenty years ago, hence their current division. If he thinks she's finally gone as bonkers as the rest of them, she is no longer capable of making their dream a reality, then his reasons for standing aside for the better candidate are gone.

Dread Emperor Ambivalent sounds up his alley.

[Tyndmyr]

Spoiler

Show

He might go for the tower this time. Its clear Malicia is not the same woman she was twenty years ago, hence their current division. If he thinks she's finally gone as bonkers as the rest of them, she is no longer capable of making their dream a reality, then his reasons for standing aside for the better candidate are gone.

Dread Emperor Ambivalent sounds up his alley.

Spoiler

Show

Nah. Dread Emperor Benevolent is definitely him if he's going for the tower. The quotes just sound like Black.

That said, he's big on personal loyalty and conversely, the Woe is loyal to him on a personal level. Even if Malicia has gone astray, I don't see him opting to climb the tower by way of murder. If he ends up on the throne, it'll be via a third path of some kind. Working unusual angles to subvert the general way of things is sort of his style.

That said, ascending the tower might not be at odds with him becoming a hero. Having Praes become a "heroic" land to balance the newfound villainy of Callow might be enough to get the balance necessary, and result in a far more stable long term situation.

The question's mostly of if Black'll let his offense at heroism overwhelm his desire to win. Given the portrayal of his motivations, I'm guessing the latter matters more to him. He's even been fine with Cat killing him in pursuit of his win, so a bit of playing at "good", in a manner similar to Akua, might be an acceptable means to his ends.

[lord_khaine]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

No.. just no..
Amadeus is -not- becoming a hero.
He has fought for beneath his entire life.
His accomplishments were directly noted by Bard. Who explained she were there on their behalf.

And we dont have anything that hints that he even might aim to be a hero, or want redemption.
He is a monster. That has been noted repeatedly.

The idea that he may become a hero sounds mostly like wishful thinking, or a tinfoil hat theory.

[tyckspoon]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

No.. just no..
Amadeus is -not- becoming a hero.
He has fought for beneath his entire life.
His accomplishments were directly noted by Bard. Who explained she were there on their behalf.

And we dont have anything that hints that he even might aim to be a hero, or want redemption.
He is a monster. That has been noted repeatedly.

The idea that he may become a hero sounds mostly like wishful thinking, or a tinfoil hat theory.

Spoiler

Show

I would have agreed, but.. if Akua can be a hero, or at least thinks she can do it, why not? I would have said the difference is that Amadeus specifically despises Above for the rules of the game while Akua will just take power from wherever it can be offered to her. But then again Black's whole thing is that everything is just tools to an end. If Above will give him the tools to achieve his goal where Below did not, why not? He doesn't have to play by their book any more than he operated by Below's standards of villainy as the Black Knight, and what he actually wants to achieve - civilizing and stabilizing Praes so they stop spilling war and horrors across the continent every thirty years- has to be at least desirable to Above even if it's not a full victory, much in the same way spreading Praesi influence over Callow is a gain for Below even if they'd rather he did it at the head of a horde of undead instead of by practical politics. Black is, above almost all else, a practical man, and practicality demands the option be considered.

..that said, I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm pretty sure he's going to be digging for another villain Name, just one better suited to his actual means of operating. If he did become a nominal hero I would expect it to be under one of the more neutral Names, one that doesn't wield the Light or the shadow-energy stuff Catherine used to play with (I think, now, we can probably safely refer to that as Night or something sufficiently similar.) Something that is based more on his own skills, the way Ranger, Thief, and Archer operate.

[Iruka]

Spoiler

Show

I would have agreed, but.. if Akua can be a hero, or at least thinks she can do it, why not? I would have said the difference is that Amadeus specifically despises Above for the rules of the game while Akua will just take power from wherever it can be offered to her. But then again Black's whole thing is that everything is just tools to an end. If Above will give him the tools to achieve his goal where Below did not, why not? He doesn't have to play by their book any more than he operated by Below's standards of villainy as the Black Knight, and what he actually wants to achieve - civilizing and stabilizing Praes so they stop spilling war and horrors across the continent every thirty years- has to be at least desirable to Above even if it's not a full victory, much in the same way spreading Praesi influence over Callow is a gain for Below even if they'd rather he did it at the head of a horde of undead instead of by practical politics. Black is, above almost all else, a practical man, and practicality demands the option be considered.

..that said, I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm pretty sure he's going to be digging for another villain Name, just one better suited to his actual means of operating. If he did become a nominal hero I would expect it to be under one of the more neutral Names, one that doesn't wield the Light or the shadow-energy stuff Catherine used to play with (I think, now, we can probably safely refer to that as Night or something sufficiently similar.) Something that is based more on his own skills, the way Ranger, Thief, and Archer operate.

Spoiler: Amadeus

Show

Does he really care about Praes? The way I understood it, he wants to stick it to Above by creating a stable Evil Empire, so Heroes don't see their victory as a given anymore. Praes benefitting from that is just coincidental.

[Florian]

That's why this series always strongly reminds me on Fate Core: While you can have a certain amount of vertical change as part of your High Concept (skill pyramid), the real change is handled on a horizontal level, when reaching a story milestone and swapping out one Aspect for another, reflecting the closure of a story arc. The author apparently has the same idea as me, that you should also change the High Concept once all three aspects have changed.

That said, I began following the series only loosely when the author started with too much vertical "power creep" instead of horizontal change.

The initial explanation actually held some promises: Repetition of some things created "grooves" and "patterns", which are the basis of Names. Very powerful archetypes with certain abilities and powers associated to them, that will be bestowed to the ones who fit the most with those archetype, in a D&D sense, the ones most heavily aligned to it.

I mention that, because we have a clear set of Names that are associated with Above and Below, but quite a number of ones that are quite neutral, like Thief or Adjutant. My initial impression of Callow actually was that the author aimed for a third stage, call it Humanistic, wich will generate Names that are opposed to both sides, because they care about the people of Creation way more than the conflict of Above and Below.

[Tyndmyr]

Spoiler: Epilogue

Show

No.. just no..
Amadeus is -not- becoming a hero.
He has fought for beneath his entire life.
His accomplishments were directly noted by Bard. Who explained she were there on their behalf.

And we dont have anything that hints that he even might aim to be a hero, or want redemption.
He is a monster. That has been noted repeatedly.

The idea that he may become a hero sounds mostly like wishful thinking, or a tinfoil hat theory.

Spoiler

Show

Oh, haha, being a hero is not...good. Amadeus wouldn't wish it, gods no, and the readers probably would view it as inherently dangerous to him.

But from a standpoint of "what will you sacrifice to win", which is a question that comes up an awful lot in these books, it's relevant. Cat chose to risk a redemption story to save Callow when dealing with Pilgrim, for instance. Cat and Amadeus are very, very much alike.

That said, if he does become a hero, I expect him to cheese the rules as much as he did for the side of villainy, and for him to get along with traditional heroes about as well as he got along with most other villains. Terribly. Whichever role he takes on, I'm sure he'll do it wonderfully.

If the power creep turned you off from the series, Florian, you may enjoy it more at present. There's some horrible big bads out there still, but a significant amount of the power escalation has vanished.

[lord_khaine]

Something that has kinda been missed out in all the name bickering.
The Tyrant continues to be a brilliant work of art, and likely the greatest Villian since Dread Emperor Irritant.

Spoiler: Tyrant

Show

“I come bearing tribute to your greatness, O Sublime One,” Kairos Theodosian said, and ordered one of the gargoyles forward.

It presented Anaxares with a shovel. It was, he could not help but notice, made entirely of rubies. That monster.

Spoiler: Name stuff

Show

Oh, haha, being a hero is not...good. Amadeus wouldn't wish it, gods no, and the readers probably would view it as inherently dangerous to him.

Its nominally good. Or well, likely as good as its possible to remain in a constant war.

But from a standpoint of "what will you sacrifice to win", which is a question that comes up an awful lot in these books, it's relevant. Cat chose to risk a redemption story to save Callow when dealing with Pilgrim, for instance. Cat and Amadeus are very, very much alike.

They are not that alike. A major part of Cat's story is finding the line between monster and effectivity. Black dont have that.
Or any noteworthy degree of emotions (or well.. likely he has. They are just switched off whenever he makes any decision).
Also, the reason the redemption story was a risk to Cat, were that she knew she would not survive it. She decided to risk it because she values her country more than her life.
And dont really plan to grow old.

That said, if he does become a hero, I expect him to cheese the rules as much as he did for the side of villainy, and for him to get along with traditional heroes about as well as he got along with most other villains. Terribly. Whichever role he takes on, I'm sure he'll do it wonderfully.

Not relevant though, since he will not become a hero. If that was his direction its not the gods beneath that Bard came representing.
And i cant really recall any instance of Black failing to get along with villians. He straight up have a team of them who are directly loyal to him.

[Tyndmyr]

Spoiler

Show

The Tyrant/Hierarch perspectives never fail to be amazing, true. I've loved every moment they're on screen. I do wonder where all that is going...Hierarch's desire to judge the gods themselves is a glorious turn of events, and, in general, the large scale setup seems to be "flip the table on the gods' system" as the final conflict. So, what, are we going to have Hierarch and Cat both involved in that? Those interactions will be glorious.

Its nominally good. Or well, likely as good as its possible to remain in a constant war.

Well, heroes are Good, in that this is their affiliation, but many of them are not super good people by reasonable standards. The White Knight is basically Two Face.

They are not that alike. A major part of Cat's story is finding the line between monster and effectivity. Black dont have that.
Or any noteworthy degree of emotions (or well.. likely he has. They are just switched off whenever he makes any decision).
Also, the reason the redemption story was a risk to Cat, were that she knew she would not survive it. She decided to risk it because she values her country more than her life.
And dont really plan to grow old.

Oh, Black most certainly has ethics. Of a sort. Very practical ethics that definitely fall on the side of evil, but a big part of why he fell out of the groove is his moral code. Let's look at his last expedition, shall we? He ensures his army is remarkably well behaved towards civilians. He doesn't need to do this. It doesn't help him in any way. The heroes are still going all out to stop them, and some foreign civilians having a better life helps him not at all. However, he still does it. He's got a certain sense of honor that stops him short of being a monster.

Black also values his country more than his life. His entire, grand goal is to break the cycle, so that Praes doesn't need to constantly invade and die. He doesn't care about holding Callow at all, he cares about the cycle of conflict breaking. The same is true of Cat, though she's Callowan instead of Praesi. Different sides of the same coin, but ultimately an identical goal. He's also very definitely stated his willingness to die to achieve his goals.

Not relevant though, since he will not become a hero. If that was his direction its not the gods beneath that Bard came representing.

Bard is probably, at least on the surface if you believe she has hidden motives, trying to convince Black to go for climbing the tower. Given that Black has no desire to do this thing, and has very little trust in Bard besides, is unlikely to just do as she says. There's a deeper game afoot here. It may not include the hero manipulation, we'll have to see, but Black ain't gonna just do something solely on Bard's advice. There'll be a twist.

And i cant really recall any instance of Black failing to get along with villians. He straight up have a team of them who are directly loyal to him.

Akua would be a particularly obvious example, but Black also greatly dislikes the high lords, and...honestly, outside of the Calamities and the Legion, he doesn't seem to give a fig for anyone else just because they are evil. He works with the Tyrant, sure, but only out of pragmaticism, and seems slightly tired/annoyed by him.

Evil fights Evil a lot in this book, and Black isn't a traditional villain. Not nearly enough cackling, for one.

[lord_khaine]

Spoiler

Show

Well, heroes are Good, in that this is their affiliation, but many of them are not super good people by reasonable standards. The White Knight is basically Two Face.

Hmm.. well.. but at the same time, it is a lot easier to hold on to your standards when your not engaged in a actual war.
All the heroes (almost) have been trying to make a difference somehow. But its hard when you face direct opposition.

And the White Knight is not Twoface. There is a very important difference in that his coin is not controlled by chance..

Oh, Black most certainly has ethics. Of a sort. Very practical ethics that definitely fall on the side of evil, but a big part of why he fell out of the groove is his moral code. Let's look at his last expedition, shall we? He ensures his army is remarkably well behaved towards civilians. He doesn't need to do this. It doesn't help him in any way. The heroes are still going all out to stop them, and some foreign civilians having a better life helps him not at all. However, he still does it. He's got a certain sense of honor that stops him short of being a monster.

Black also values his country more than his life. His entire, grand goal is to break the cycle, so that Praes doesn't need to constantly invade and die. He doesn't care about holding Callow at all, he cares about the cycle of conflict breaking. The same is true of Cat, though she's Callowan instead of Praesi. Different sides of the same coin, but ultimately an identical goal. He's also very definitely stated his willingness to die to achieve his goals.

No.. i cant agree on this in any way. The trail of corpses he has left in his wake, of both men and children, is just to broad to make him anything but a monster.
Making his army behave might as well just be part of the instinctive PR he does. It does not cost him anything. And leaves people more likely to surrender to him another time.
But in all the internal monologue he has had. Then we have not yet seen honor or lines that should not be crossed mentioned a single time. He has killed his emotions.
For him there are only cost/benefit analysis.

I mean, when you have ordered the systematic killing of children just because they might become heroes, then i cant see many lines left to cross.

Bard is probably, at least on the surface if you believe she has hidden motives, trying to convince Black to go for climbing the tower. Given that Black has no desire to do this thing, and has very little trust in Bard besides, is unlikely to just do as she says. There's a deeper game afoot here. It may not include the hero manipulation, we'll have to see, but Black ain't gonna just do something solely on Bard's advice. There'll be a twist.

Well.. Bard is involved. You can go mad trying to guess at the number of twists involved ,though thankfully Black already crossed that line as well. I will say he is as mad as the Tyrant. Just in another way.
Hmm.. thinking about it some more. I believe he and the Tyrant are kinda opposite sides of the same coin.

And im not certain why Bard would want to try and make Black climb the tower. Malicia seems likely to have a far greater degree of favor with the Gods Below.

Akua would be a particularly obvious example, but Black also greatly dislikes the high lords, and...honestly, outside of the Calamities and the Legion, he doesn't seem to give a fig for anyone else just because they are evil. He works with the Tyrant, sure, but only out of pragmaticism, and seems slightly tired/annoyed by him.

Evil fights Evil a lot in this book, and Black isn't a traditional villain. Not nearly enough cackling, for one.

Hmm.. well yeah alright he clearly did not like Akua, though likely most of all because she were getting in his away.
And yes its likely only a few things he actually care about. But i dont see not caring about something like the same as not getting along with it. One is a absence of emotion. The other a active dislike.

[Anteros]

I'm not sure the comparisons to Two Face are entirely fair. Sure, they both flip coins to avoid making personal judgements, but Two Face puts himself into situations where he's hurting people. The White Knight puts himself into situations where he's protecting them. It's an important distinction. While both characters claim that they don't make judgements, the reality is that their personalities do put them in entirely different situations, and have them judging entirely different types of people.

I do wonder what the Knight would do if his coin ever ordered him to do something he truly disagreed with though. He's certainly far from pure Good even though he's better than a Batman villain.

[Tyndmyr]

Spoiler

Show

Hmm.. well.. but at the same time, it is a lot easier to hold on to your standards when your not engaged in a actual war.
All the heroes (almost) have been trying to make a difference somehow. But its hard when you face direct opposition.

And the White Knight is not Twoface. There is a very important difference in that his coin is not controlled by chance..

It is easier to be good when you're not opposed, perhaps. But in this setting, even when given ways to be reasonably good, heroes have routinely chosen violence because they cannot abide the success of Evil. Look at the band of heroes that Cat killed...she offered 'em ways to do good that would result in no conflict at all, but they spurned it.

Good is not terribly good.

And the Good Gods are pretty much straight up monsters. Hell, remember the Hashmallim summoning to strip the free will from everyone in a huge radius? That's....morally not great. The fact that beings of such a persuasion are watching through his coin and urging him to murder more doesn't make him a great person. The heroes are often morally bent or broken.

No.. i cant agree on this in any way. The trail of corpses he has left in his wake, of both men and children, is just to broad to make him anything but a monster.
Making his army behave might as well just be part of the instinctive PR he does. It does not cost him anything. And leaves people more likely to surrender to him another time.
But in all the internal monologue he has had. Then we have not yet seen honor or lines that should not be crossed mentioned a single time. He has killed his emotions.
For him there are only cost/benefit analysis.

If his corpses make him a monster, then what of the corpses made by heroes?

Dude's on a campaign expecting to die. He's not super worried about PR aimed at the distant future.

I mean, when you have ordered the systematic killing of children just because they might become heroes, then i cant see many lines left to cross.

Eh, it's the "kill baby Hitler" problem. If you know someone *will* do great evil, but hasn't yet, is it alright to kill them?

It's certainly very pragmatic to do so. One might argue that he has saved a vastly greater number of lives by preventing all the conflict and murder that would have resulted from those he killed.

Well.. Bard is involved. You can go mad trying to guess at the number of twists involved ,though thankfully Black already crossed that line as well. I will say he is as mad as the Tyrant. Just in another way.
Hmm.. thinking about it some more. I believe he and the Tyrant are kinda opposite sides of the same coin.

And im not certain why Bard would want to try and make Black climb the tower. Malicia seems likely to have a far greater degree of favor with the Gods Below.

My guessing is fuzzy here. I *believe* Bard works for the continuance of the story. The continued struggle of good and evil. This explains her actions as a herald for both the Gods Above and Below. When considering the context for why she does this, I think it's tied into the whole metaplot of the disagreement of gods. All of creation exists to settle this question, what happens to creation when one side definitively wins?

So, I think Bard's trying to balance the scales to keep the whole affair ticking. How this ties into her plans with Amadeus, I'm unsure. As you say, could be layers of manipulation here. However, Black has done well for the side of evil overall, and it seems her overt proposition is to keep him playing for that side in some capacity. Her *actual* intentions? Ehhh. Guesswork at that point.

[Aotrs Commander]

Hmm.. well.. but at the same time, it is a lot easier to hold on to your standards when your not engaged in a actual war.
All the heroes (almost) have been trying to make a difference somehow. But its hard when you face direct opposition.

If you can't uphold your standards when it become less conveniant or difficult, you had no standards worth anything in the first place.

Like I said before, being Good means you DON'T get to take the easy path and you don't get to say "this is hard" and make moral compromises because it's easier.

[Anteros]

If you can't uphold your standards when it become less conveniant or difficult, you had no standards worth anything in the first place.

Like I said before, being Good means you DON'T get to take the easy path and you don't get to say "this is hard" and make moral compromises because it's easier.

Which is a fine opinion as long as you're RPing a character on a message board or playing a black and white morality system in a video game where people don't have to suffer the consequences of you making stupid decisions for the sake of arbitrary fantasy ideals.

Unfortunately it has no place in any remotely realistic setting. In reality bad things happen no matter what you do, and any good person who isn't naive to the point of idiocy recognizes this and works to minimize the damage.

[Aotrs Commander]

Which is a fine opinion as long as you're RPing a character on a message board or playing a black and white morality system in a video game where people don't have to suffer the consequences of you making stupid decisions for the sake of arbitrary fantasy ideals.

Unfortunately it has no place in any remotely realistic setting. In reality bad things happen no matter what you do, and any good person who isn't naive to the point of idiocy recognizes this and works to minimize the damage.

Stupid decisions?

What stupid decisions?

Are you really trying to tell me you're equating doing the right thing with a "stupid decision?"

[Tyndmyr]

If you adopt the principle that it's alright to murder people and forego principles because it's more convenient to do so, then team Evil becomes good as well.

Which I think is rather the point.

[Rynjin]

Which is a fine opinion as long as you're RPing a character on a message board or playing a black and white morality system in a video game where people don't have to suffer the consequences of you making stupid decisions for the sake of arbitrary fantasy ideals.

Unfortunately it has no place in any remotely realistic setting. In reality bad things happen no matter what you do, and any good person who isn't naive to the point of idiocy recognizes this and works to minimize the damage.

Good and Evil as strict, delineated concepts do not exist in reality, or any sort of realistic setting in the first place, so your point is moot.

You can be a good person who occasionally does bad things for the greater good. Killing someone to save another from them is an "evil" act for a good cause, and washes out.

You cannot claim to be Good, holding yourself as a moral authority and inherently, unshakably above others, a paragon of righteousness, etc., etc. and do things like, say, wipe out thousands of innocents because it is strategically convenient, ironically making you more of a mass murderer than the army you're facing, which had meticulously avoided civilian casualties until you caught up with them.

"Good" becomes a meaningless term when someone like that falls into it, who throws away all principles, all restraint, all basic human decency for strategic concerns. They are neither Good nor good at that point; they're just a flavor of evil that isn't self-aware enough to recognize what a monster they are.

[Forum Explorer]

Which is a fine opinion as long as you're RPing a character on a message board or playing a black and white morality system in a video game where people don't have to suffer the consequences of you making stupid decisions for the sake of arbitrary fantasy ideals.

Unfortunately it has no place in any remotely realistic setting. In reality bad things happen no matter what you do, and any good person who isn't naive to the point of idiocy recognizes this and works to minimize the damage.

I'll agree that good and evil isn't always black and white, but there is still a difference between good and evil.

But I get it. Sometimes what's good for your nation isn't really a good act, and there isn't many ways to avoid it. Like Cat starving the invading army. The 'good' thing to do is to feed them and hope they won't betray you. Which would be stupid. On the other hand, they are an invading army, and starving them is part of defending yourself. So I'd hardly say not providing them with food is evil.

Other times you just end up in a really uncomfortable position. Like a powerful ally asking you to hold a civilian from a foreign nation that they don't like. The civilian hasn't done anything wrong, and the reason for holding them is almost certainly BS. But now you are in a troubling spot of do you piss off your ally (who is much more powerful than you), or do you do the right thing? As the leader of a nation don't you have a responsibility to your people? Or is your responsibility to your conscious instead?

However, just like there are obviously good answers that are impractical, there are also obviously evil actions that don't become any less evil just because they are practical. Like unleashing a bioweapon on a civilian target to catch the army garrisoning inside it.

[Anteros]

Stupid decisions?

What stupid decisions?

Are you really trying to tell me you're equating doing the right thing with a "stupid decision?"

No, what I'm saying is that your entire concept of "Good" that you've posted is entirely simplistic and based on a lot of assumptions that simply aren't true. The idea that you should have a set of rules and maintain them no matter how stupid it is or who suffers isn't "Good" in any sense.

If you adopt the principle that it's alright to murder people and forego principles because it's more convenient to do so, then team Evil becomes good as well.

Which I think is rather the point.

No, that's also far too simplistic. Is it evil to kill Hitler? Not even baby Hitler, but full blown genocidal maniac Hitler? What about an intruder trying to murder your family? Obviously someone out there is going to say "murder is always wrong" but any amount of actually thinking about the problem deeper than catchphrases is going to tell you it's not that simplistic.

Good and Evil as strict, delineated concepts do not exist in reality, or any sort of realistic setting in the first place, so your point is moot.

You can be a good person who occasionally does bad things for the greater good. Killing someone to save another from them is an "evil" act for a good cause, and washes out.

You cannot claim to be Good, holding yourself as a moral authority and inherently, unshakably above others, a paragon of righteousness, etc., etc. and do things like, say, wipe out thousands of innocents because it is strategically convenient, ironically making you more of a mass murderer than the army you're facing, which had meticulously avoided civilian casualties until you caught up with them.

"Good" becomes a meaningless term when someone like that falls into it, who throws away all principles, all restraint, all basic human decency for strategic concerns. They are neither Good nor good at that point; they're just a flavor of evil that isn't self-aware enough to recognize what a monster they are.

Nothing you said here invalidates anything I said. Nor do I disagree with any of this except for the fact that good and evil obviously exist as concepts or we wouldn't have words for them, much less be having a conversation about them. It's just that the world is made up of shades of both and there are very few objectively good or objectively evil things.

I do agree that many of the heroes in this particular story are not good people. I don't agree that "being good" means putting your personal morals on a pedestal and never breaking them no matter who suffers or how impractical it is. That's simplistic to the point of being childlike.

Snip

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I think people are taking my post to mean that I think that the atrocities some of the heroes in this story commit are ok. I don't. At times the "heroes" of this story are worse than the villains. Which shouldn't be surprising since that concept is fairly central to the entire plot. It's just not so simplistic as "You bent your rules in the face of reality one time! You're just as big a monster as the person willfully slaughtering thousands!"

[Tyndmyr]

No, that's also far too simplistic. Is it evil to kill Hitler? Not even baby Hitler, but full blown genocidal maniac Hitler? What about an intruder trying to murder your family? Obviously someone out there is going to say "murder is always wrong" but any amount of actually thinking about the problem deeper than catchphrases is going to tell you it's not that simplistic.

Murder, not merely kill.

We have a surplus of examples of Heros killing people who were merely incidentally in the way. Not hostages even, but just collateral damage. Heroes ought to make an effort to avoid this, or they're not really good people. Killing is a "there's no other way" option, not "screw it, plague bomb the entire city, just to be sure".

I do agree that many of the heroes in this particular story are not good people. I don't agree that "being good" means putting your personal morals on a pedestal and never breaking them no matter who suffers or how impractical it is. That's simplistic to the point of being childlike.

It's what heroism is, though. At most, if they realize that their morals are causing harm, a heroic reaction would be to reflect upon those ideals and change them to avoid unnecessary suffering. The attitude of "welp, my morals are inconvenient, so I'll ignore them" is wildly unheroic. The heroic person is the one who stands by his morals, even when they do not benefit him, or may lead to his death.

Now, this is a bit of deconstruction of good and evil, and the nature of villainy and heroism, so some shades of gray comparison is to be expected, but most of the heroes we've shown have been pretty awful heroes.

[Forum Explorer]

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I think people are taking my post to mean that I think that the atrocities some of the heroes in this story commit are ok. I don't. At times the "heroes" of this story are worse than the villains. Which shouldn't be surprising since that concept is fairly central to the entire plot. It's just not so simplistic as "You bent your rules in the face of reality one time! You're just as big a monster as the person willfully slaughtering thousands!"

I think the problem is that we've never seen a Hero actually uphold their supposed values. Not once. The out and out villains are worse, like Akua and the Tyrant, but Black and Malicia really haven't done anything worse than the heroes. Seriously, every single atrocity they've done has been matched by the Heroes. Including releasing the Dead King, considering the Saint of Swords was counting on that very thing happening, just to wipe out all the corrupt nobles (and countless innocent civilians)

[Florian]

That happens when you paint yourself into a corner.

As with similar cases of Objective Alignment, we´re A) talking about camps and B) have to deal with the situation that each OA, as it is depicted, can actually be true and self-sustaining. Presi and the D&D Abyss/Hell have to be depicted in such a way, that their ways work for them and they can actually prosper by staying true to them.

That's part of the big flaw here.

The initial lore declares Above and Below as equally right and of equal strength, they couldn't fight it out between them, therefore the need for Creation as a proxy to potentially fight it out for them.

Now we have a starting situation that our main cast wants to do "good" by using the ways of "Evil", because they see "evil" as a failure. That only works when the "Good" guys are shown in such a way, that the lines are blurred enough to prevent the question why their chosen grey area could be better than switching sides whole hog.

[lord_khaine]

I think the problem is that we've never seen a Hero actually uphold their supposed values. Not once. The out and out villains are worse, like Akua and the Tyrant, but Black and Malicia really haven't done anything worse than the heroes. Seriously, every single atrocity they've done has been matched by the Heroes. Including releasing the Dead King, considering the Saint of Swords was counting on that very thing happening, just to wipe out all the corrupt nobles (and countless innocent civilians)

Sorry but thats just plain wrong. Not even the Perigrine is quite as bad as Mr. Systematically murder children who might become heroes. Or Miss plot for an entire town to become zombified just to get a super weapon.
And we have seen heroes put their life on the line while fighting for others. Both Williams band and the White knight have done so.