Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 234
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by a_flemish_guy View Post
    I'd like to disagree with this with a caveat: "it's perfectly ok to be neutral, it's not supposed to be treated like 2 steps up from evil"
    I'd argue that sticking only to what's your moral duty is a neutral act and it's going beyond what's expected of you in either solely the interests of others or at a detriment to yourselves is a good act
    Yeah. I like to think of Neutral as 'Decent'. You don't do bad things, you don't go out of your way to be particularly good.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    In fact, the "good is not nice" type frequently is making excuses for their goodness. As if it's shameful, in the manner of a big burly man being embarrassed to wear a tutu, or a prim and proper woman being embarrassed to dress scandalously and sing and dance on stage for leering men. The characters feel it wrong, even if the audience doesn't. Usually, such characters are gruff and less than gentle, but grudgingly go back and do the right thing even after telling themselves not to.
    I think a strong example is Rin Tohsaka from the Fate series. She spends a lot of UBW doing the right thing while talking about how it's in her self-interest or just paying back a debt. When she goes to the point of *staying* in debt it starts to look suspicious. :) But mage society in that universe seems to hold Lawful Evil behavior up as an aspirational goal: pursue magical power above all else, at least within some rules for co-existence. Imagine someone with the soul of a paladin but who's been raised to self-serving ambition, and devoted most of her life to preparing for a kill-or-be-killed competition. Her brain tells her to kill without mercy, her heart disagrees, and she listens to her heart.

    Complaining loudly all the way. Very loudly.

    On top of her being tsundere for her love interests, and just about anything else in her life that isn't an actual threat...

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    To me, the difference between amoral and immoral is whether the immorality is its own motivation.
    I disagree, because I think that kind of immorality barely exists outside of fiction. Maybe there's some serial killer who qualifies, but most people who do bad things justify it to themselves, or on impulse, they're not doing it "because it's immoral".

    Why did someone steal?

    * They did it in the moment, not even thinking about it.
    * "I need it more than they do"
    * "They stole it themselves."

    Why did someone kill?

    * "I was angry. Oops."
    * "They hurt me, I'm paying them back."
    * "I'm protecting my group."

    Killers often have a very strong moral sense, of sorts. It's not necessarily working the same way it does for the rest of us -- "my sister dishonored our family, she had to die"

    In general I'd say people doing bad things fall into

    * "It's good, really, here's why"
    * Just not caring about doing wrong; maybe they need X, or it feels too good to give up
    * "Goodness is a myth people use to manipulate each other, I'm not worse than anyone else, just more honest." Which is still a justification for the second one, doing what they want (which is usually mundane -- wanting money/land/sex/power/safety, not "for the evil").

    If anything, distinguishing between amoral and immoral is another way to feel good about being immoral. "I'm just selfish, not EVIL." No, if you're selfish without brakes or restraint, you're evil or only circumstances away from it, it doesn't matter that you're not actively sadistic or satanic.

    "I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by mindstalk View Post
    I disagree, because I think that kind of immorality barely exists outside of fiction. Maybe there's some serial killer who qualifies, but most people who do bad things justify it to themselves, or on impulse, they're not doing it "because it's immoral".

    Why did someone steal?

    * They did it in the moment, not even thinking about it.
    * "I need it more than they do"
    * "They stole it themselves."

    Why did someone kill?

    * "I was angry. Oops."
    * "They hurt me, I'm paying them back."
    * "I'm protecting my group."

    Killers often have a very strong moral sense, of sorts. It's not necessarily working the same way it does for the rest of us -- "my sister dishonored our family, she had to die"

    In general I'd say people doing bad things fall into

    * "It's good, really, here's why"
    * Just not caring about doing wrong; maybe they need X, or it feels too good to give up
    * "Goodness is a myth people use to manipulate each other, I'm not worse than anyone else, just more honest." Which is still a justification for the second one, doing what they want (which is usually mundane -- wanting money/land/sex/power/safety, not "for the evil").

    If anything, distinguishing between amoral and immoral is another way to feel good about being immoral. "I'm just selfish, not EVIL." No, if you're selfish without brakes or restraint, you're evil or only circumstances away from it, it doesn't matter that you're not actively sadistic or satanic.

    "I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.
    I didn't say that immoral people do immoral things for the sake of being evil. I said that the immoral act was its own purpose.

    An amoral person might kill somebody who is in their way. An immoral person wants to kill that person (whether specifically, or just because they want to kill somebody and that person is convenient). An amoral person might take money or food to feed himself or another, or to service a larger agenda. An immoral person will take things because he wants them for their own sake.

    This isn't to say that immoral people can't also be amoral. But an amoral person's goals are not, themselves, immoral. They're not necessarily moral, either, but the distinction is whether the goals are definitionally unachievable by a moral person.

    Note: I said "definitionally," not "practically." That is, if you do achieve your goals, and the achievement of your goal is itself an immoral deed, you are immoral. If you do achieve your goals, and anybody who knew nothing about how you got to them would simply say, "Oh, good for him," then you may be amoral. (Not a guarantee, but it is a necessary condition.)

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I didn't say that immoral people do immoral things for the sake of being evil. I said that the immoral act was its own purpose.

    An amoral person might kill somebody who is in their way. An immoral person wants to kill that person (whether specifically, or just because they want to kill somebody and that person is convenient). An amoral person might take money or food to feed himself or another, or to service a larger agenda. An immoral person will take things because he wants them for their own sake.

    This isn't to say that immoral people can't also be amoral. But an amoral person's goals are not, themselves, immoral. They're not necessarily moral, either, but the distinction is whether the goals are definitionally unachievable by a moral person.

    Note: I said "definitionally," not "practically." That is, if you do achieve your goals, and the achievement of your goal is itself an immoral deed, you are immoral. If you do achieve your goals, and anybody who knew nothing about how you got to them would simply say, "Oh, good for him," then you may be amoral. (Not a guarantee, but it is a necessary condition.)
    You are using the term "amoral" to describe "individual with amoral or moral goals". This does not match either common definition.
    1. (of acts) being neither moral nor immoral
    2. (of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality
    Nor does it match a common 3rd definition
    3. A being that is not capable of or faced with moral choices. Aka, a being that is not a moral agent and thus cannot be moral or immoral because they don't have the opportunity or the capability to do things that are moral / immoral.

    You brought this definition up in response to the subthread between a_flemish_guy and myself. Could you elaborate on the relevance? We were primarily using definition 1 since we were talking about acts.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 01:52 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    I generally find the desire to play a good character who is actually evil incredibly contrarian and unfun. Just play a evil character if that's what you want, rather than trying to trick me.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by mindstalk View Post
    "I want to hurt you" and "I don't care if I hurt you" are both evil, even if they're different in a psychological sense.
    Yeah, but even good people will occasionally perform evil acts.

    A good person may steal bread to feed their family, after all other options have been exhausted. They'll still feel bad about it, and will likely try to make amends when they can.

    An evil person, however, will steal just because they're feeling a bit peckish.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I generally find the desire to play a good character who is actually evil incredibly contrarian and unfun. Just play a evil character if that's what you want, rather than trying to trick me.
    I think the guy that's abrasive but is actually a good human being to be a very interesting character. Think of Clint Eastwood's character in Grand Torino.

    The Good character that's syrupy nicey nice is just entirely too two dimensional. At that point you're playing a caricature rather than a character.

    Yes, there can be nice Good people, and even ones that aren't over-the-top nice can have varying levels of not-niceness, and so on and so forth. Characters should be complex. But... if someone is saying "all Good characters must be like this, then I suspect that there's a lot of stereotyping of "good" in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by mindstalk View Post
    Ideally, yes. But people aren't perfect, and being not-nice in daily life is not the sort of thing that pushes a person who self-sacrifices on big things off of the Good end.

    Some things do. If you work hard for lots of orphanages while keeping a sex slave chained in the basement, I'd say you're Evil, because some things are "one strike, you're out": the good done doesn't make up for the appalling evil.
    So.... I look at it as acts and people, in different categories.

    An act is Good if it is done to help others, especially at a cost to one's self, without any expectation of compensation. The greater the sacrifice, the more Good. Good is pretty much directly self-sacrifice, to my way of thinking.

    A Neutral act is one that is often self interested, but in a fair way - trading someone for something you want, for instance. You'll get a fair deal, maybe even drive a hard bargain, but at the end of the day everyone's agreeing to it and everyone comes away at least a little better off.

    Evil is self interest at the expense of others. It's the opposite of Good.

    Now... those are acts, and the amount of sacrifice/expense can change how good/evil an act is. And I view acts pretty strictly in this sense. Murder is more evil than theft, but theft is still evil.... and evil acts done for good purposes are still good

    People, though, are less strict.

    A good person will do Good things on a fairly basis, and at a fairly-to-reasonably high cost to themselves. They'll also do a ton of neutral stuff (everyone does), and may even commit an evil act on occasion, though usually it will be under great duress, they'll have guilt over it, and they'll try to make amends when they can.

    A neutral person pretty much does all neutral stuff. They're fair, they get along with everyone. They don't necessarily do a lot of charity, and aren't into self sacrifice, but they might give a little on occasion, and they also might do a few minor evils on occasion. They'll probably still have some guilt about it, but it won't bug them as much.

    An evil person is just out for themselves. If you're willing to harm others (steal, murder, etc.) for personal gain, you're evil. Doesn't mean that you are always evil, or are doing it for giggles, or without reason. But just like a Good person will help others with little regard for themselves, and Evil person will help themselves with little regard for others. An evil person that does good on occasion is still evil... the evil trumps whatever it is that they do. Neutral is not doing Good and Evil in rough proportion, someone that does that is Evil.

    So for the "saves orphanages, has a sex slave" example, the Evil of the sex slave trumps any goodness done, in my way of looking at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mindstalk View Post
    We already talked about Miko, but Roy's father, Eugene, is also officially Lawful Good. This is more of an informed attribute from what we've seen, but he used to be an adventurer, I can believe it. But he's a pretty flawed human, distractable (according to his wife) and of course very crochety as a nagging dead guy. Not Nice. But presumably with a lot of lifetime spent on Good, and nothing that pushes him to being not-Good. Just... less Good. Certainly less pleasant.
    A very good example of "Good, but not pleasant".
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    I think the amoral/immoral thing is getting too far into the weeds. All I'm saying is that amorality is often, but doesn't have to be, evil. Immorality (where we define "moral" specifically according to the Good/Evil axis) is inherently evil.

    The character from whom I take my screen name is a very evil necromancer, but he rarely has evil goals. He is amoral by my definition, but that in no way excuses his behavior nor makes him neutral. He's evil, because he can and will perpetrate evil acts if they are the best way to ensure his goals' achievement.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I think the amoral/immoral thing is getting too far into the weeds. All I'm saying is that amorality is often, but doesn't have to be, evil. Immorality (where we define "moral" specifically according to the Good/Evil axis) is inherently evil.
    That says more about which definition you are talking about than it does about how a different definition was used in the subthread you replied to.

    Acknowledging events can be amoral (1. [of acts] being neither moral nor immoral) is fundamental to understanding terms like "morally obligatory", "morally permissible", "morally prohibited", and "morally supererogatory".

    Once we are using the same definition, then everything becomes clear. Especially since a_flemish_guy and I were discussing "moral duty". Whether performing your"moral duty is a moral or an amoral event depends on the nature of that moral duty. Specifically we discussed active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited.


    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The character from whom I take my screen name is a very evil necromancer, but he rarely has evil goals. He is amoral by my definition, but that in no way excuses his behavior nor makes him neutral. He's evil, because he can and will perpetrate evil acts if they are the best way to ensure his goals' achievement.
    This dives into the 2nd definition (the one not used in that subthread) and the 3rd definition (which I tried to avoid in the subthread).
    2) If that very evil necromancer disbelieves or otherwise does not care about the subject of morality, then they are amoral under the 2nd definition. This is obviously different from the very evil necromancer that believes they are doing the right thing.
    3) Since the very evil necromancer is evil/good, they must be a moral agent that has/had the opportunity to face moral choices. Since they are a moral agent, they are not amoral in the same sense that a deer is amoral.
    Aka, yes I think your conclusion on these other definitions is fine. But the subthread you replied to was talking about the 1st definition.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 12:25 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    That says more about which definition you are talking about than it does about how a different definition was used in the subthread you replied to.

    Acknowledging events can be amoral (1. [of acts] being neither moral nor immoral) is fundamental to understanding terms like "morally obligatory", "morally permissible", "morally prohibited", and "morally supererogatory".

    Once we are using the same definition, then everything becomes clear. Especially since a_flemish_guy and I were discussing "moral duty". Whether performing your"moral duty is a moral or an amoral event depends on the nature of that moral duty. Specifically we discussed active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited.



    This dives into the 2nd definition (the one not used in that subthread) and the 3rd definition (which I tried to avoid in the subthread).
    2) If that very evil necromancer disbelieves or otherwise does not care about the subject of morality, then they are amoral under the 2nd definition. This is obviously different from the very evil necromancer that believes they are doing the right thing.
    3) Since the very evil necromancer is evil/good, they must be a moral agent that has/had the opportunity to face moral choices. Since they are a moral agent, they are not amoral in the same sense that a deer is amoral.
    Aka, yes I think your conclusion on these other definitions is fine. I was talking about the 1st definition.
    Ah, fair enough. I didn't pick up on the context at all, and didn't grasp what you were trying to say about the context until this post. Sorry about that.

    "Moral duty" is a sticky concept because it comes down to very specific circumstances every single time. Most would find a guy who literally only has to say, "I'll save you!" to save somebody's life, who refuses to even do that at no cost to himself save the effort a normal person would have to put into that statement, to be fairly reprehensible. However, the more you increase the cost to the could-be-savior - whether in effort, risk, or anything else - the less reprehensible he seems. While many good people would be very mad at themselves for failing to save somebody even if they couldn't realistically have done so, very few would fault a man for refusing to risk his own life for a slim chance of saving another's life.

    Of course, amoral acts are simply those which, in D&D, would be morally-neutral. "I'm going to have lunch" is a morally neutral, amoral act, as a general rule. I mean, you can add things to it to give it moral weight, but it is those circumstantial changes that are the morally-altered things.

    There are, yes, two kinds of neutral-aligned beings, as well: amoral ones who are not moral agents, and morally-ambiguous ones who may perpetrate some evils but have limits, and also do some good (but generally aren't doing Great Deeds of Good or the like).

    So, I think we're in agreement?

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    On my way for Xibalba
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    In my opinion there's a limit to how much harsh and verbally abusive a person can be without stepping into the Evil behiavour. Evil in D&D is about causing suffering. It's perfectly possible to cause great suffering without physical violence.
    " Death is a disease! It's like any other... there's a cure. A cure! And I will find it. "
    - Tom Creo, The Fountain

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Ah, fair enough. I didn't pick up on the context at all, and didn't grasp what you were trying to say about the context until this post. Sorry about that.
    I am glad we are on the same page, sorry about not being clearer earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    "Moral duty" is a sticky concept because it comes down to very specific circumstances every single time. Most would find a guy who literally only has to say, "I'll save you!" to save somebody's life, who refuses to even do that at no cost to himself save the effort a normal person would have to put into that statement, to be fairly reprehensible. However, the more you increase the cost to the could-be-savior - whether in effort, risk, or anything else - the less reprehensible he seems. While many good people would be very mad at themselves for failing to save somebody even if they couldn't realistically have done so, very few would fault a man for refusing to risk his own life for a slim chance of saving another's life.
    Indeed it can be quite sticky. We had a specific circumstance, and agreed enough on the moral duty involved, but a slight difference in initial opinion is what lead to us dissecting moral duty into the active duty to do the morally obligatory vs passive duty to abstain from the morally prohibited. This lead to the conclusion that Person A had a mostly amoral event since the moral duty in that case was mostly passive. I am glad a_flemish_guy brought up that distinction because I had overlooked it in my post.

    So most of the discussion about moral duty was at an abstract enough level with enough common premises that we avoided the sticky part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Of course, amoral acts are simply those which, in D&D, would be morally-neutral. "I'm going to have lunch" is a morally neutral, amoral act, as a general rule. I mean, you can add things to it to give it moral weight, but it is those circumstantial changes that are the morally-altered things.

    There are, yes, two kinds of neutral-aligned beings, as well: amoral ones who are not moral agents, and morally-ambiguous ones who may perpetrate some evils but have limits, and also do some good (but generally aren't doing Great Deeds of Good or the like).

    So, I think we're in agreement?
    Yes, these are premises we have in common.

    I tend to use moral/amoral/immoral terms when discussing metaethics and ethics because they are more precise jargon than the colloquial terms good/neutral/evil
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 12:47 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conradine View Post
    In my opinion there's a limit to how much harsh and verbally abusive a person can be without stepping into the Evil behiavour. Evil in D&D is about causing suffering. It's perfectly possible to cause great suffering without physical violence.
    Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

    The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

    The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.
    Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

    your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  15. - Top - End - #105
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    On my way for Xibalba
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    I said "it's about causing suffering". I should have been more precise, it's about deliberately, consciously and unnecessarily causing suffering.

    Politely delining a date is a thing, laughing at the proposal and mocking the person's appearance / behiavour / social status is a whole different issue.
    " Death is a disease! It's like any other... there's a cure. A cure! And I will find it. "
    - Tom Creo, The Fountain

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

    your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.
    I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

    Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Causing suffering isn't Evil. You can cause suffering simply by telling someone you aren't interested in dating them. Everyone, good or evil, causes suffering at some point or another in their lives.

    The desire to (and enjoyment of) causing suffering is Evil.
    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

    Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.
    It depends on the moral theory. Utilitarianism for example would hold that causing an increase in suffering is immoral. However that is a consequentialist theory and it sounds like you consider intent to be the important part of the intent/action/consequent trio.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Thats setting the bar of non-evil a little low, not gonna lie.

    your missing your a big gap there between "everyone causes suffering so its okay" and "enjoys causing suffering" that a lot of evil falls into. like ignoring suffering just because everyone causes it? I would not say thats Good.
    If causing suffering is unavoidable, then causing suffering is probably not inherently immoral (although it might still be prima facie immoral). There is probably something that differentiates between immoral causation of suffering and other causation of suffering. Some examples: unnecessary, excessive, net increase, etc.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 05:21 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    I didn't say "...so it's okay", only that it isn't necessarily evil.

    Heck, punishing your kid for misbehaving is causing suffering. And it is intentional. But it's for a higher purpose. And I wouldn't say that it's Evil.
    what kind of punishment? your talking as it there is only one punishment when there is a spectrum of punishments for child. again your leaving out a lot here. not all punishment is the same. and anything that includes even a small amount of violence on a child I would not say is good.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  19. - Top - End - #109
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    what kind of punishment? your talking as it there is only one punishment when there is a spectrum of punishments for child. again your leaving out a lot here. not all punishment is the same. and anything that includes even a small amount of violence on a child I would not say is good.
    I believe there argument there is that punishment necessarily causes suffering but is not necessarily immoral. Your further questions seeking specifics kinda support the thrust of their argument.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 05:40 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    I believe there argument there is that punishment necessarily causes suffering but is not necessarily immoral. Your further questions kinda support the thrust of their argument.
    Okay, but "its only evil if you enjoy/desire it" is still a pretty low bar.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  21. - Top - End - #111
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Okay, but "its only evil if you enjoy/desire it" is still a pretty low bar.
    Yes, a strictly intent based moral theory is a rather low bar. Some moral theories have really high bars.

    Although maybe that was just with regards to suffering.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    I mean the bar for being Chaotic Evil used to be "likes walks through hell, burning orphanages, and murdering puppies"

    Alignment has become more inclusive over the years to reflect that the spectrum is not from Saint to Sociopath.
    Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    You could say evil is causing unnecessary or avoidable suffering.

    If Joe is into Jane, and she's not into him, suffering is unavoidable. She turns him down and he feels hurt, or she goes out with him and suffers a relationship she doesn't want. There is no suffering-free outcome.

    But she can turn him down kindly but firmly (don't want to give false hope.) Or she can waffle hoping he takes a hint, drawing out the process. Or she can rudely put him down, "why would anyone go out with a greenskin like you?" The latter two cause excess suffering, in various ways. 'waffle' is thoughtlessness or misplaced kindness, but the putdown at least approaches evil.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Reathin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    "Good" is tied to action (healing the sick, defending the weak, sheltering the innocent, all that literally good stuff) while being nice is tied to the expression of your actions. It is entirely possible to have a truly selfless individual whose actions are saint-like and yet they aren't nice. Maybe they're deeply cynical but want to fight against that (while acknowledging how little they are really able to do or how far they have to go to make society as a whole better). That's emotionally draining, which makes it hard to maintain basic civility. Maybe they're embarrassed but driven by guilt to act in good ways. Maybe they think manners slows down the efficiency of their Good acts (I've seen this before, and it's almost universally a short-sighted strategy. "Refusing to sugar coat" things, even when it's not being used as an excuse to be rude, still makes your job harder 9 times out of 10 compared to just taking a second to word things gently). Maybe they're simply not good at interacting with people, so don't even try to put on a nice face.

    Being nice usually makes doing Good more palatable, and there's definitely a correlation between being good and being nice (Nice and Evil aren't antonyms, but they're unusual enough to draw attention, whereas a charitable, kind sort being nice isn't exactly newsworthy), but at the end of the day, they're still separate concepts.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    By that logic, evil can't ever be nice. They must give their children coal on Christmas, beat them on their birthdays, and make fun of their big noses. They must never pet a puppy or serve a non-poisoned meal to their guests.

    Nice is situational. Good/evil isn't.
    The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
    Last edited by Thayborne; 2020-08-04 at 08:58 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Thayborne View Post
    The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
    Nay, it is easy and comforting to dehumanize and demonize the other. However it does naught but blind you. It is wiser to confront the fact that even the other are people too. The love of a loving parent to their child is not a cruelty regardless of whether the parent is otherwise a "wicked" person or not.

    Beware foolish proverbs. It is better to heed the rare true wisdom from a fool than the rare true foolishness from the wise. And better yet to become wise enough to judge for yourself.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 09:47 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    The love of a loving parent to their child is not a cruelty regardless of whether the parent is otherwise a "wicked" person or not.
    No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  28. - Top - End - #118
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    No, Abusive parents are a thing. perhaps take your own medicine about foolish proverbs.
    I would not call that "loving" parents. Abuse is not love.


    With that context my post will become clearer to you. Especially if you read the proverb I was criticising. If you assume someone who is "wicked" in one aspect of their life must be wicked in all aspects of their life, then you blind yourself. That is why the proverb in question is foolish. It is a comforting fiction rather than reality.

    PS: The 2nd half of your post does not make sense. Even if you nitpick or otherwise disagree with my post, my post does follow its own advice. It is my words rather than blindly repeating a dehumanizing proverb. And it calls for reasoned evaluation rather than blind acceptance.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-08-04 at 10:50 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    AKA: Most people are good people to their friends.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Good Isn't Nice? Get Out Of Here!

    Two things emerge from this thread, first and foremost. One, the definitions of both "good" and "nice" are very situation dependent. Second, maybe TVTropes shouldn't be treated as a serious source of character analysis.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •