DM has decided to run an Evil Campaign that supposedly will last

>>53440407
lichdom
in party backstabbing
child molesting

get creative

A good retirement with the only People in the World you wouldn't harm.

Kinda like main character of Hitman 2 or even 5 if he wasn't a killer autist above all.

>>53440407
Shit man, be good old lawfull evil and create your own ork/elf/whatever fascist state and be the charismatic dictator and have the others suprised when the next paladin vomits when he uses "detect evil" on you.

>>53440407
Anything. Evil doesn't set your goals, it just defines the ways you achieve them.

>>53440407
Whatever you want, that's the beauty of being Evil. Just take and do whatever you want until that stops mattering. You're either left with character development or consequences to try and fix.

>>53440552
This. It can even be ressurecting his wife the abominable dr phibes or trying to end evil in city ras al'ghul in Batman Origins. I prefer DOOM in ruling a land as you see fit, really believing this is the best way.

File: loli revved up.jpg (71KB, 612x688px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 612x688px

>short term goal
Remember that one guy that said something bad about your hat? Fuck that guy, he's gonna die in the most painful way possible.

>medium term goal
Get yourself a bitchin' cult.

>long term goal
Achieve immortal loli form (this goal is constant through all points of the alignment spectrum).

File: ShirouEvil.png (592KB, 1600x1145px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1600x1145px

Rescue your little sister from the guy who wants to murder her to save the world.

File: chaotic evil.jpg (38KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x304px

>>53440407
COLLECT ALL THE PENISES OF 7 LEARNED SAGES FOR A DARK RITUAL!

KILL ALL THE UNICORN AND STEAL THEIR HORNS TO CURE THEIR HORRIBLE EVIL PENIS DISEASE!

HOLLOW OUT A TARRASQUE AND MAKE A GIANT ANIMATRONIC MOBILE FORTRESS OUT OF ITS STUFFED CORPSE!

LOVE A LICH AND BRING THEM A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF LYCHEES!

RUN A BANK!

>>53440407
Punish bad people.

Ensure justice for all.

Make the world a better place.

>>53440407
Outlawing red colored clothing. Punishing anyone that wears red.

>>53440407
If you run an evil campaign id say the best way to go about it is to have the party play the acting role.

You have a world, and you want to subvert that world, you start at 0 and you slowly have to work your way to dismantling society, without getting too much attention before you can handle the smackdown that will be laid down upon you by the good guys.

Have it be a sandbox with a very clear goal and a very clear failure state that can happen rather quickly.

Make it clear that sure they can just make an army eventualyl ally with evil creatures and overrun the world.
But also show that its probably easier to just found a religion, slowly migrate to developed nations, breed a lot, subvert the local politics by styling yourself as the victim and eventually gaining control of them to do your bidding.

Another good point is to have there be "a bigger evil"; not that you have to fight evil but that when your party allies with i dont know a demon or something they still should expect to be SCREWED by said Demon, just because both are evil doesnt mean they are on the same team.

>>53440801
I could see a minotaur villain doing this. yeah I know bulls and the color red is a myth

File: doompanthergod8.jpg (314KB, 781x1165px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 781x1165px

>>53440407
Like this. Nothing else is necessary.

>>53440407
I'm assuming by your post, you're not the DM. In which case, why don't you ask if he had anything in mind before you go off and do your own thing halfcocked?

>>53440407
I've always liked the "Someone tried to murder you. If they realized you were still alive they would do anything in their power to kill you. Kill them first to do otherwise will give them time to notice and swat you."

>>53440407
blackmail scrapbook on every relevant person ever

File: iamok.png (20KB, 119x97px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 119x97px

I had a character try to achieve economic dominance over a land while the rest of the party went murderhobo.

He was just about to make city council when the party decided to blow up the island they were on and we were forced to leave.


Basically just pick something you want to do, mundane or not, and do whatever it takes to get it, morals be damned.

>>53440762
>RUN A BANK!
We want evil not eldritch monster.

>>53440704

Jesus that's fucking selfish.

>>53440762
>COLLECT ALL THE PENISES OF 7 LEARNED SAGES FOR A DARK RITUAL!
You'd think there would be only seven penises, but the way this is phrased makes me think otherwise.

File: 1452380499333.jpg (96KB, 800x718px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x718px

>>53440407
To be the best cannibal chef in the world. Always working on new recipes.

>>53441949

Good works are always corrupted by evil means. Better that the world die than be saved by loli murder.

>>53440407
Destroy society through cultural and legal subversion, then slowly institute a caste system for you an your chosen people.

Get a harem.

Make alliances with evil races.

Collect important artifacts that might foil you and construct dungeons to protect them.

>>53442104
There was a peaceful island culture that believed that. They were horrifically genocided by the Maori.

The only determining factor in who is right in this world is who survives and spreads their genes. You're just one link in a chain of genetic success up until you.

File: 1493312736291.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>53440407
>long term goal

How about retirement? Start to work on a proper evil lair and you'll find plenty to keep you busy.

Contract the greatest engineer in the land to build your fortress. Preferably by kidnapping his family.

Labor and material will be the primary hurdles, so choose a location to best fill those needs. Shitkicking peasants and lots of whatever supplies, preferably with no eye towards sustainability.

Keeping the labor in and the other kingdoms out is the next concern, get yourself a band of mercenaries and put them in charge of bringing in more work, meeting deadlines, and fighting off any nosy neighbors. Comfortable life with regular meals and slaves to abuse should satisfy a functional Gestapo force for your needs.

Next you want a dragon or Darth Vader type of monster, some alternative terrible enough to make folks reconsider overthrowing your goons outright. Just make sure it's busy with something other than pulling the rug out from under you.

Get all that and your Deathstar is well on it's way without the need for parental supervision, letting you get back to other evil activities.

>>53442104
>the whole world should die so a loli won't be unfairly killed
This is entirely retarded.
With or without the ethics. If it's so wrong to murder an innocent that the whole world should end to prevent it, that's dooming every other innocent in the world for it. It's beyond selfish, it's pants-on-head retarded.

>>53440407
Become untouchable. The best way to do this is to be discreet, amassing money, power, influence, and resources in quiet ways. Your reasons for this can be numerous, such as wanting your children to have the best future you can provide, simple pride, fear of death, so on and so forth. The best thing in any case is to make sure that the people who help you come to good ends, and know that you are responsible. People will bend over backwards for someone kind and charming who does them favors, because they're "a good person." Once they have this in mind, they can justify some of the most atrocious things. Alternatively, you can instill fear, though this tends to be less useful in the long term, as any weakness, real or perceived, can lead to death and defeat. This gets even worse when you consider that there's always someone that can bring you to your knees.

>>53440407
Rape

The character i'm currently playing is a petty thief who tries to get by; other group members include a chaotic-idiot jester who blows shit up, a serial killer who hangs victims on hooks and later feeds them to his pet lion yes and a bard who does not yet know who he's travelling with, both in and out of character.
Just play whatever you think will be fun to play. As for motivations, a cute example is trying to make the world a better place in all the wrong ways.

>>53442104
I actually remember a DM who had a villain use that logic. Basically he was one of those heroes that found himself in a "Your girlfriend or the world." Moments he couldn't break out of. Which then doomed the world to rotting away. The game was effectively about a bunch of heroes teaming up to save the world by ganking a guys girlfriend.

File: IMG_0053.jpg (55KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 320x240px

>>53440593
Best

>>53442159
So feminism?

>>53442406

Protecting a loved one from an obvious and objective evil like the plans of an outside force to torture and murder them is right and correct behavior. Even if they tell you that they're doing it to save the world, why should I value the life of people I don't know over a cherished family member? Empathy? It's more empathetic to care about faceless masses than my own flesh and blood? It's more right to allow her to have her life snuffed out in agony because it means people who I'll never know and will never care about me, her, or the sacrifice she'd being called to make? They get to live so that she'll be forgotten?

I have no obligations to "the human race," or its continuity. The first and foremost obligation of every human is to the ones they love. If she's willing to make that sacrifice, I'd abide by her wishes as long as I believed she was not being coerced or manipulated away from her true feelings. But if she wanted to live, and asked me to save her, even if I knew it would cost the world, letting her die would be the only thing that's "pants on head retarded."

>>53442406
>utilitarianism is the only morally acceptable action
>deontology being "retarded"
>wew
By that logic you could justify slavery as helping humanity as a whole, therefore being morally acceptable.

>>53442566
Good work anon, you proved you are a good villain.

Good base himself on selfless, it is selfish to protect someone more just because of family ties. If your point was that you oppose sacrificing anyone against their wishes that would have been justified. But opposing it just because of a blood link is very reprobable.

>>53442636

I'd kind of say that when you are legit talking about ending the world for a loli. Who will likely die right afterwards due to starvation something has went wrong.

>>53442636
Not him, but how does slavery help humanity as a whole?

You know that slavery was dropped not only because of morals, but also because it got completely outdated right?

>>53442662

I find it funny that you are defining the murder of an innocent or the allowing of the murder of a family member as "selfless," behavior. You're undermining your own argument by defining Good as Selfless. I made it clear that if it was what she wanted absent outside influence to die to save others I'd allow it, because SHE would be the one acting selfless. But allowing her to be murdered if she didn't want that? Fuck off. A guy who comes to my house looking to kill my sister to save the world isn't a hero, he's a sociopath, especially if he's doing it for the masses and not his own loved ones.

Fighting evil for the greater good is noble, killing innocents for the greater good is evil.

>>53442682
Pretty much this. Large scale slavery requires that the owner pay costs for the slave and force them to work without them fucking their work up on purpose. These days you can just pay someone and tell them to be at work tomorrow.

About the only real value most people would find if slavery was legalized today would just be in the high price in owning someone. Effectively saying you are so rich that you can buy Veblen goods on the scale of people.

>>53442004
Maybe one of the sages is a lizardfolk, or a dragon.

>>53442748
>The wonders of social bonding and the extremes of self destructive behavior it can create--Anon.

>>53442748
>I want everyone, including my imouto, to end their days in a shithole, because I don't give a damn about anyone save her
Yes, call me a sociopath.

>>53442748
>I find it funny that you are defining the murder of an innocent or the allowing of the murder of a family member as "selfless," behavior.
It is. You are literally putting your feelings in second place to the fate of humanity. That's selfless. It is selfish to stay in your monkeysphere and put more value in a single life than a million of other people, who also have loved ones and would prefer to stay alive.

>A guy who comes to my house looking to kill my sister to save the world isn't a hero, he's a sociopath, especially if he's doing it for the masses and not his own loved ones.
Are you kidding me? How is he a sociopath to take an action he clearly doesn't want to, but needs to because he loves the world too much to let it end?

Anon you are wrong. Your personal feelings shouldn't factor when deciding how much a live is worth. Your only would have a point if you said you would defend anyone, but saying 'a family member' already makes you very selfish.

>>53442891
>>53442926

The fact that some people on /tg/ actually think that the quantity of lives preserved is the most important spectrum when defining good with no thought for methods or harm done on any other non-numerical spectrum never ceases to amaze.

>>53442952
>our personal feelings shouldn't factor when deciding how much a live is worth.

That's the only real deciding factor in what a life is worth though.

>>53442636
>Implying deontology mattered
Slavery was abolished when it became economically unviable, not when some asshole said "They are people, they are not property!".
No one gives a damn about evil until it goes overboard or touches them personally. Loli-defender is point in case.

>>53441153
I love being a Doomfag

>>53442952

Degrading the value of love and personal relationships to meaninglessness by claiming that every life is equal and thus you should be willing if not EAGER to see the people you care about die is it means a larger number of people live is fucking horrifying.

You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man? 1000 people? 100 people? 10 people? If it would save three lives should I cut my own sister's throat? What if she was pregnant, then I'd be killing two people but I'd still be saving three, so that's still the only moral and ethical choice, right?

When you reduce good to numbers, you reduce good to nothing.

>>53443031
I think it's less about that and more about doing so would kind of kill all of humanity including the person that is being defended. Logically speaking the correct action for the most total gain would be taking her down on the spot.

Assuming of course this was a one hundred percent known deal of this person dies or everyone else does.

>>53443061

That's not true, Britain abolished slavery when it was still at its economic peak.

Granted, they primarily did it for economic and military reasons to fuck over France, but doing it under the banner of moral outrage is what caused it to find support among the majority of the populace, without whom it would have been a politically untenable decision.

>>53443043
Only if you believe that life has no inherient value by itself, which isn't a good position.

>>53443129
Why is it horrifying to you saying that it's selfless to ignore your personal bias to save as much as possible?

The breaking point is saving as much as possible. Ergo if you sister was on a rope on one side almost failing on a cliff, and two other small girls were on another rope that you were holding, a good person would save the two little girls first.

>>53443129
>You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man? 1000 people? 100 people? 10 people? If it would save three lives should I cut my own sister's throat? What if she was pregnant, then I'd be killing two people but I'd still be saving three, so that's still the only moral and ethical choice, right?

Depends on your ethical code I would say. Personally I say killing all of humanity would be retarded and self destructive but I could see a couple million here depending on where the deaths happen at. It would also depend on the personal relationship. Do I care for my sister? Do I hate her guts? If she is pregnant and I'm saving three people are they rich and can I get money off of them? Who is making the most gain here? And how do I maximize my own?

>Degrading the value of love

Love is a cheap word that barely means anything anymore.

>>53443031
Everyone ending their lives in a shithole is about both quality and quantity of lives.

>>53443129
>You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man?
You don't care about numbers, anyway. One million men equal one man for you, so you can't claim moral high ground; you devalue lives at least as easily as your opposition.

>>53443176
Okay, deontology is useful for putting a spin on something. Still a far cry from it's supposed value and goal.

>>53440407
Intentionally do things that set up heroes that want revenge against your party, because you want a challenge.

>>53443129

this, utilitarianism is a fucking warped mindset used to justify the greatest atrocities in human history, a gangraping a young orphan is justifiable because more people will derive happiness than suffering, and killing a single innocent to save two is perfectly justifiable.

the only times that utilitarianism ever forms the pretence of working is when it forces people into completely inane thought experiments which could never occur in the real world.

File: Edgemaster Talon.jpg (320KB, 1215x717px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1215x717px

>>53443276

seriously though, if you're a true proponent of utilitarianism you'll check into a loony bin before you murder someone

>>53443358
>utilitarianism ever forms the pretense of working

That's more or less due to how the human brain functions however. Utilitarianism can't really work because the vast majority of people will try to increase the prestige and power of their family and the people around them. Because it pays out in the long term survival wise.

Course this in itself leads to it's own problems because it rapidly becomes parasitism off of humanity. As long as it helps yourself or your friends it's fine and not at all immoral.

>>53443276
That sounds pretty evil

>>53443458
>utilitarianism
>Personally I say killing all of humanity would be retarded and self destructive but I could see a couple million

That's like the very opposite of utilitarianism there anon.

>>53443274

Ah, the old Sadistic Choice argument, will Spiderman save the bus full of children or Mary Jane? But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about if Spiderman will let Mary Jane die to save people who aren't even around him, who he's never met, who he will never met, when she's begging for him to save her. Also, if we're actually going by the scenario from that manga page, they won't die for years yet if not longer, and that's assuming that they will die and not find some alternative means of survival in the world after its been changed by the Apocalypse.

If you think Spiderman would take that trade, you don't know Spiderman. Or any hero in the history of literature.

>>53443276

Who was arguing that I was putting forth an evil sentiment by saying I would save a loved one at the expense of "the human race," as a faceless whole unless she truly desired to make that sacrifice? It's nice to know I'm more evil than this guy apparently.

>>53443283

I'm devaluing life as an ontological baseline of worth because Quantity As Measurement Of Good is crap. Of course life has some inherent worth, but I refuse to accept that the inherent worth of life has more weight than the relationships and emotions that are the result of living. The people you have feelings for and the relationships you have with them, should be worth more than some vague attachment to the continuity of your species. Only the innocent person themselves have the right to say that their life and their attachments are worth less than the Human Race, not some psychotic on a crusade.

File: Multi Track Drifting.jpg (82KB, 506x632px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 506x632px

here's a trolley problem for everyone

there is a trolley on a train track heading towards a rail with 4 people on it, diverting the train onto another rail will run over 4 different people

you know nothing about these people, and they appear to be of a similar age with two men and two women.

do you switch the tracks?


here's another

there is a run away tolley baring down on 4 people, diverting the tracks will cause the trolley to change direction and only kill one, however you have been told that one of the people on the track is a serial killer.

do you switch the rails?

>>53443502
I try to work on my puppy kicking daily. Every day I wake up and think of all the animals I could be kicking right now. Of all the suckers I can pull a con job on. Of all the people who's day I could make far worse though petty annoyances.

It makes life worth living anon you should try it sometime.

File: 04.jpg (352KB, 1000x1537px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1000x1537px

Let the world end for selfish reasons.

>>53443551
We aren't going by any manga page anon, we are talking in general.

And I didn't say anything about Spiderman, just a very common situation that actually happened to a lot of other heroes.

And yes anon, the correct choice is forsaking your loved one to save the majority of people. You're nuts if you believe that it's somewhat heroic to dismiss a lot of lives because 'I don't know those guys' or forsaking everyone because 'sorry, I liked her more than I like all of you people. my bad'.

>>53443551
>if Spiderman will let Mary Jane die to save people who aren't even around him, who he's never met, who he will never met

That's mostly just the effect of dehumanization though. Since you can't see the person the scale of the damage feels more limited then it really is.

>>53443552

I think I could have phrased my second problem better.

one of the people on one of the tracks is a serial killer, but you don't know which track he/she is on

would you switch the track?

>>53443551
>Of course life has some inherent worth, but I refuse to accept that the inherent worth of life has more weight than the relationships and emotions that are the result of living. The people you have feelings for and the relationships you have with them, should be worth more than some vague attachment to the continuity of your species.
Which actually makes you a huge scumbag, because you believe that YOURS feelings and attachments have more value than all of those other people feelings and relationships. Each one, every single one of those other people also have loved ones, family, friends and people who love and care about them. But no, in your tunnel vision the only things that matters is YOU and your OWN feelings. This is why you are evil anon.

>>53443552
Honestly my favorite of these problems is the one where you can hit a lever to cause a fat guy to fall down and slow down a trolley.

Then right afterwards ask "Instead of hitting a lever you have to push the man down yourself" It's fascinating to see how 90+ percent of the time people will take a 180 on the morality of the action.

>>53443666
>>53443615

I love that people keep ignoring the fact that I've said in every single post "but if SHE said she was willing to die and I was reasonably certain those were her true wishes and not the result of coercion or some other manipulation, then I would allow her to die." All of you seem to keep glossing over the fact that the scenario presented when this argument started was that a Third Party is coming to kill Your Sister because it will save Humanity. I said I would oppose that UNLESS SHE WANTED IT, but I don't think one single person calling me evil has addressed that. But I guess its just much easier to be "good," when you don't have to give a fuck about the feelings of your victim and can just focus on the motives of your opposition, right?

By the way, every argument against me keeps circling back to "More Saved = Less Evil," which I still don't accept and haven't seen a good argument for yet. Next time an Evil Warlord tries to take over your Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die. Quantity is the only metric that matters, right?

>>53443551
So, your feelings matter more than anyone else.
I can understand your position, anon, but it's certainly not a pulpit on top of which you can condemn the evil sociopaths out to save society.

>>53443876

Again, yes, I think my feelings should matter more than the faceless masses to whom I have no attachment and the people who have decided Cold-Blooded Murder Is The Only Way To Save The World. But THE ACTUAL INNOCENT VICTIM'S FEELINGS matter more than mine. Its HER decision if I fight to save her or allow her to die, so long as that decision is not unduly influenced.

>>53443858
>I love that people keep ignoring the fact that I've said in every single post "but if SHE said she was willing to die and I was reasonably certain those were her true wishes and not the result of coercion or some other manipulation, then I would allow her to die."
Not really anon, people are criticizing you for putting the life of someone with ties above all others.

If your position was "I'm against sacrificing any innocent", then it would be a justificable position. But if your position is "I'm against sacrificing my sister because she has ties with me and other people doesn't", you are indeed mislead and selfish.

And anon, your last scenario is as bad as your scenario about slavery. Defeating the Evil Warlord will bring much more good in the long run than surrendering and enduring his evil.

>>53442636
Slavery is an inefficient system. If it were superior to capitalism, we'd absolutely be using it today.

>>53443998
>Again, yes, I think my feelings should matter more than the faceless masses to whom I have no attachment
Not him, but that is the antithesis of goodness. Goodness is caring about everyone and recognizing that each one of those 'faceless' have entire lives full of loves, hopes, wishes and dreams and as such should also be cherished.

>>53442556
You have to go deeper. Ask yourself why Jews don't get targeted in affirmative action.

>>53443858
>a Third Party is coming to kill Your Sister because it will save Humanity
Didn't see you deny that statement. So our choice is between overwhelming suffering for everyone, including your sister, and personal suffering of your family. All you do is postpone it to safeguard your emotions a little longer.

>Next time an Evil Warlord tries to take over your Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die
But will surrender cause less suffering? No reason to believe that, given it's an Evil Warlord.

>>53444087
Well, he's not aquianted with them, and has no emotional connection to them, therefore they are worthless. Only those who he has connection to have some worth, and these two groups of people (connected and unconnected) are completely separate entities. That's just tribalism.

>>53442104
Hey so uh, if the world dies how does the loli not die too anyway?

>>53443358
>a gangraping a young orphan is justifiable because more people will derive happiness than suffering,
Net total human suffering, anon. The gangrape does not make the criminals happier beyond a temporary rush. Allowing it also encourages more of it in the future. You're just shitty at seeing the logical causality and mistake that for meaning that utilitarianism is bad.

>>53444192
>Well, he's not aquianted with them, and has no emotional connection to them, therefore they are worthless.
Yes, I can see that anon. But that doesn't change that it's against goodness however. Goodness requires a much higher level of thought and empathy.

>>53443551
Spiderman did sacrifice his future child to save his aunt may. But this is largely regarded as a dumb move and unintentional character assassination.

>>53444087

You're assuming that I don't recognize those things because I don't consider them more important than my own? Or more importantly, that I don't consider them more important than those of an innocent person that I care about, and for whom I would sublimate my own wishes?

>>53444002

Why is it "good," to treat all innocents equally and "evil," to show favoritism to an innocent that you care about? Are you telling me that if some guy came to me and said "I'm going to murder your sister to save the world," and I stopped him I would be evil but if he said "I'm going to murder some random person to save the world," and I stopped him I'm good because I treated all innocents the same? Can you not see how absurd that is? "The thing that makes you evil is the fact that you love somebody. If you didn't love anybody you could still condemn humanity to extinction by not allowing a murder, but because you're doing it for the sake of ideology its not evil."

>>53443858
>Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die. Quantity is the only metric that matters, right?

WW2 France?

>>53444305
>You're assuming that I don't recognize those things because I don't consider them more important than my own? Or more importantly, that I don't consider them more important than those of an innocent person that I care about, and for whom I would sublimate my own wishes?

So if you recognize them and still considers yours to be more important, just because they are yours, then you are indeed selfish which isn't good.

>Why is it "good," to treat all innocents equally and "evil," to show favoritism to an innocent that you care about?
Because evil is about selfishness and goodness is about selfless. You are literally saying that someone deserves more than others just because they had the priviliege of being born in closer to you. That's unfair with all those who didn't.

>Are you telling me that if some guy came to me and said "I'm going to murder your sister to save the world," and I stopped him I would be evil but if he said "I'm going to murder some random person to save the world," and I stopped him I'm good because I treated all innocents the same?
Not really, because the reasonings are different. One is for the love of every little life, the other is for the selfish love of your own relationships. If you defended your little sister not because she was your sister, but because you believe in defending all life then it would be justified.

> Can you not see how absurd that is? "The thing that makes you evil is the fact that you love somebody. If you didn't love anybody you could still condemn humanity to extinction by not allowing a murder, but because you're doing it for the sake of ideology its not evil."
Are you being disingenous on purpose anon? In which way did you miss the point that intent matter?

It's like giving to charity because you want to help poor people or giving to charity because you want popularity. It's about intent anon.

>>53444305
You don't recognize those things, yes. From your standpoint, people who do not evoke sufficiently strong positive emotion from you are not people, not a collective of persons as valid and unique as you, but something closer to a collective of animals: alive, feeling, capable of communication but ultimately irrelevant beyond being useful (or detrimental) to you. You deny yourself the capacity to recognize their feelings as what they are: as valid as yours.

>>53442682
>but also because it got completely outdated right?

American prison population existing as a cheap labor force challenges that.

File: goblin.jpg (175KB, 1401x1000px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1401x1000px

>>53440704
Pretty sure that makes you the good guy anon. Good intentions don't justify evil actions.

>>53444543
Prison labor is completely different from slavery anon.

Also most of the profits in prisons come actually from the grant system.

File: skyward.jpg (230KB, 1280x905px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1280x905px

>>53440407
Conquer the world, destroy all inherently evil races, unite everyone and then conquer and colonize Hell.

Sure, that sounds like some pretty good guy stuff, but not everyone is gonna be willing to be united, so you're gonna have to force it on them, Conquest Paladin style.

File: Hitler Ritter.png (7MB, 1521x1537px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1521x1537px

>>53444680
And you have pretty bitching mats for badass speeches.

>>53444445

So the only thing that matters in good vs evil is intent, and your actual acts don't matter. The Ends Justifies The Means is a Good philosophy? Horseshit.

Also I really feel like I need to come back to this point: I've said at every step that I would sublimate my wishes for the wishes of my sister BECAUSE of my attachment to her. If she wanted to die of her own free will to save the world, I would let her. And yet if she did not want to die to save the world, and so I saved her, I'm evil because my motive either way is my love for her outweighing my love for The Human Race? I am selfish if I save her from being murdered when she wants to live, and therefore I am evil, but if I let her die to save the world because I care more about her desires, what am I then? Still evil because "selfishness," was my motive either way? That makes no sense. By that logic you can never allow your attachment to another human to sway a decision you make in any way, and can only ever decide things in terms of the good of your species as a whole, or else you are evil.

So lets say I am saving an innocent from being killed whom I don't care about because I believe all innocents should be equally protected. Lets also say he WANTED to die because his killers said his death would save the world. Based on your logic, by defying his wishes AND condemning the human race to destruction I am still good, and the reason I am good is because I don't actually care about him personally in any way, and my only investment in the situation is my code of protecting all innocents equally? This is a completely broken way of thinking.

File: 1488074490742.jpg (86KB, 809x1200px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 809x1200px

>>53443552

>>53444507

You're making an absolutely ridiculous leap by claiming that valuing your own feelings and the feelings of your loved ones over the feelings of others to whom you have no personal connection is the exact same thing as considering all people you don't know personally to be no more than animals who are irrelevant beyond their worth as tool/resource. Like, wow, even by 4chan standards that's a leap.

File: ThisIsHowIPaladin.png (1MB, 542x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 542x1536px

>>53441949
>>53440704
>>53444600
>>53442104
Shirou is a case study in how to paladin so hard it breaks the universe

File: 1268958323113.jpg (83KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x380px

This is now a Lawful Good thread

>>53444745
>So the only thing that matters in good vs evil is intent, and your actual acts don't matter. The Ends Justifies The Means is a Good philosophy? Horseshit.
Except anon that nowhere was said 'the end justifies the means', just that posture matters a lot in what you are doing. Posture do affect your actions, but nowhere was said that your actions by itself were worthless.

Notice that I said justificable and not good. Because even if you desire was to protect every single life, it would still be bad for humanity as a whole. But it wouldn't actually fall on the rule of evil which requires selfishness, just tragic misguidement.

>Also I really feel like I need to come back to this point: I've said at every step that I would sublimate my wishes for the wishes of my sister BECAUSE of my attachment to her.
Which isn't a good metric when adding value upon people.

>. By that logic you can never allow your attachment to another human to sway a decision you make in any way, and can only ever decide things in terms of the good of your species as a whole, or else you are evil.
Actually yes, you shouldn't let attachment cloud your decisions anon. Goodness relies on treating everyone equal. Like organizing a tourney and giving a prize to the one who deserves it instead of your close friend. It makes completely sense, because you aren't using a complete unfair weight to judge a situation. Like I said before, it's lowering others lives simple because they weren't born close to you.

>So lets say...
You don't understand what justificable means do you anon?

It means that personally it's understandable your position, but that doesn't mean it's a correct position. Your interest can be good but still foolish.

However acting by selfishness is always evil. That is the point that somehow you haven't gotten it yet. Somehow.

>>53444859
>You're making an absolutely ridiculous leap by claiming that valuing your own feelings and the feelings of your loved ones over the feelings of others
Not him, but a good person shouldn't do that. A good person would value all feelings by itself and weight them equally upon their worth.

>>53443552
There is a trolley on a train track heading towards a rail with five people on it. Diverting the train onto the other rail will run over one person.

All five of the people on the one track murdered one person each. The person on the other track murdered five people. All of them promise to return as ghosts, murder everyone you love from beyond the grave, and torment you for the rest of your life if you don't save them.

Do you switch the tracks?

>>53444859
How is that different? If you're above everyone else, who are those lessers to you, if not tools or resources?
>>53444305
>I am selfish if I save her from being murdered when she wants to live, and therefore I am evil, but if I let her die to save the world because I care more about her desires, what am I then? Still evil because "selfishness," was my motive either way? That makes no sense.

Yes, you value your relationship with your sister over everything else, because having good relationships with her pleases you. If you contravene her desires, either to save humanity or to live, that will damage your relationships with her. One action is coincidental with doing good, but it still does not change how you view others, nor does it change your goals.
If you're evil, that doesn't mean you cannot do good.

>>53444947

>Goodness relies on treating everyone equal. Like organizing a tourney and giving a prize to the one who deserves it instead of your close friend. It makes completely sense, because you aren't using a complete unfair weight to judge a situation.

This is textbook Lawful Neutral, there is nothing Good about it.

>>53445124
>This is textbook Lawful Neutral, there is nothing Good about it.
Why it isn't good to give something to the one who deserves it?

Someone lawful neutral would actually act alongside the tourney, but that's more because of the lawful aspect than the neutral one. It's lawful to act according to a tourney rules. But someone good would also favour the one who deserves, even if not lawful, because he isn't selfish enough to favour someone just for having a blood link with him. That's not just unlawful, that's corruption.

>>53445111

What is this, Persona Social Links? The reason that I honored my sisters wishes, whether to save her from being murdered even if it would further a greater good, or to allow her to sacrifice herself for the sake of the world, was to PRESERVE OUR RELATIONSHIP because the relationship PLEASES me? You have a fucking warped view of human interaction and emotional attachment.

File: define meme.jpg (42KB, 634x715px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 634x715px

>>53442226
>who survives and spreads their genes.
*who survives and spreads their memes.
We're talking about culture.

>>53445218
>was to PRESERVE OUR RELATIONSHIP because the relationship PLEASES me?
Why is your relationship more important than all the other billions relationships in the world?

>PLEASES me
Keep admitting to being selfish anon.

>>53443287
Underrated post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CApIobs1oss

>>53443129
It is objectively better to slit your sisters throat to save the lives of 2 randos, of course it's well within the bounds of reasonable selfishness to not do so for 2 people. Now for a million people? No, that's way beyond reasonable selfishness and turns you into a complete fucking monster.

>>53445189

Giving something to the one who deserves it is Lawful. Good and evil doesn't play into it. The Rules say the person gets the thing, whether that is a prize or a penalty. You follow that rule, you are lawful, there is nothing moral to consider in that decision.

Good would be seeing that the prize would go to an evil person for an evil end and deciding to prevent that. You would be violating Lawful for the sake of good. If you were Lawful Good you would be obligated to allow the evil person to get the prize, but then would have to immediately dedicate yourself to foiling his plan because it was by your hand he has the opportunity to do evil. So, in fact, being Good or Evil is the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. To be either, you MUST allow bias to effect your decisions. If you treat all things equally and don't allow any bias from a moral perspective, you are Neutral, full stop.

Build a bright future for your people. Only your people.

>>53443065
>tfw we'll never get a movie where Doom is the protagonist.
>tfw we'll never see him rescue his mother from hell on the big screen.
I guess we'll just have to deal with the retarded or petty versions of him that Hollywood likes...

>>53440407
Eradicating everybody with a random specific characteristic i.e everyone whose name starts with a 'J', or who has violet eyes.

Since you're gonna be evil you can as well be a psychopath, and not necessarily the lolsorandom type, but a regular, calculating, cold motherfucker, who just so happens to really hate some miniscule feature

>>53445312

Morality according to /tg/: murder an innocent to save an arbitrarily larger quantity of lives, or you are evil. If that innocent is a blood relative, murder them EVEN HARDER to save that arbitrary quantity, or you are DOUBLE EVIL.

The number of paladins certain posters ITT have forced to fall is probably staggering.

>>53445336
Nope. There is something moral to consider when following a rule if it's a good rule. A good person will always follow a good rule, regardless if they are chaotic or lawful.

You for example created a scenario that has nothing to do with mine, which simply said 'someone that deserves is more important than someone with a blood tie'. You are literally creating something that has nothing to do with the issue, so please stop that.

>>53445425
You've take the option that has resulted in more death and harm, you have done an evil act.

Now if that evil is within the bounds of acceptable selfishness or not is another question. If you don't sacrifice a loved one for the sake of 2 people, that's within reasonable bounds. The World? Sorry pal, you're fucking disgustingly uncaring about the world.

Here's a simple question for you then, are the other people of the world who are trying to kill the stranger they've never meet or cared about to save all of their loved ones evil in your book? Or is your morality so out of bounds that there can be two groups with the direct opposite goals who are both good?

>>53445425
>Morality according to /tg/: murder an innocent to save an arbitrarily larger quantity of lives, or you are evil. If that innocent is a blood relative, murder them EVEN HARDER to save that arbitrary quantity, or you are DOUBLE EVIL.
I guess you could take that if you are retarded. If you have a working brain however you would see nothing implying that a blood tie should make it more grievous, just that it shouldn't be considered when deciding the fate of humanity.

>>53445447

You defined the situation as a tournament where everyone should have an equal opportunity to compete and win absent bias from the officials. Meritocratic competition devoid of a moral component is Neutral, not Good. Don't try and twist out of your own words.

>>53445576
Did you miss the 'blood tie' or are you being dense in purpose?

>>53445244
how does its use over time go back to the 1800s if the word wasn't invented until the 70s?

>>53445471

>Or is your morality so out of bounds that there can be two groups with the direct opposite goals who are both good?

Um... yes? Is this a serious question? This happens all the time in real life AND in games. Ever heard of, I dunno, war? Two groups of soldiers trying to kill each other, both doing so with the intent of preserving the lives of their brothers in arms. Direct opposite goals, both good. And that's just the most obvious example anyone should think of the second they hear that absurd statement.

>>53445218
So there's some intrinsic quality in your relationships which does not depend on what emotions they evoke. Does that mean that you would honor wishes of someone who ingrained himself in your life only to ruin it?

I'd also want to add to this post >>53444859:
you do not acknowledge that other people are capable of emotions of same magnitutide and complexity that you are. If you truly value the emotions and connections made throughout life, not yours only - but in principle, this acknowledgement would mean that murder of loved ones of someone you don't know is as horrific to you as those of your own.

To deny that the whole humanity that's outside of your group of friends and family is incapable of experiencing things as vividly as you is to imply that only people related to you by blood or by chance have truly worthvile lives.
To say then that life of your most cherished one has more worth than collective lives of whole humanity is to infer that this comparative worthiness is grossly in favor of your sister.
Since you base the worthiness on emotions, it would mean that people outside of your group can only feel a tiny fraction, an echo of what you can feel. Therefore, a comparison with animals.

But how does that mesh with the fact that your friends, who are not your blood relatives, didn't meet you by some divine providence that herds the most worthy together? What about the extended family?

Alternatively, you value only your own emotions and connections, regardless of whatever qualities emotions of others have.

>>53440407
Become omnipresent.
I AM THE WIND, I AM THE SEA! THE FIRE IN YOUR HEART AND THE COLD OF THE DARK!
Now I can finally rest.

>>53445730
One outcome or the other will result in a better more moral option, and the side fighting against it is in fact working towards a less moral, or less good, outcome.

Now again, you can then argue if their wanted outcome is within the bounds of acceptable selfishness or outside and thus "evil".

It'll be very hard to say which outcome is better since there's a lot of factors so whom the good side is up for debate, but a thing being hard to find out doesn't make it any less true and in the end one of the groups will be the most moral one.

>>53443552
For simplicity's sake, I'll phrase these as A or B:
Two old men, or one young woman?
One innocent man or four innocent men, and the man who killed someone you loved.
One child or five criminals, the nature of the crimes is unknown
Five people or yourself
Five people need organs. You have found a man who is a match for all of them. Do you kill him for his organs?
Five people with only 5 years left to live or a man who will live for decades to come
Five suicidally depressed people or an imprisoned rapist?

>>53444970
That's not good. That's a computer.

If you are a computer you are not a human.

>>53445472
Humanity that can be save only by killing some random girl can fuck itself or come at me and try to take her. All at once if they want.

I don't see any value in saving such people alive for soon they will start feeding the force that wants to kill them all periodically. Fuck them if they don't want to take a stand against it.

>>53445884
>That's not good. That's a computer.
It's being a computer saving those little kids instead of your old brother?

Wow anon. Of course you would feel bad about it, but being good is putting up with your own feelings and doing what is right.

>>53445761

> If you truly value the emotions and connections made throughout life, not yours only - but in principle, this acknowledgement would mean that murder of loved ones of someone you don't know is as horrific to you as those of your own.

Are you saying that preserving a life if you know that its preservation will lead to greater death is tantamount to murder? Because I dispute that 100%. If Armageddon is going to destroy all humans unless I allow my sister to be murdered, but she doesn't want to die so I save her, I'm allowing for the continued onset of that Armageddon, but I absolutely not murdering anyone. In fact, I PREVENTED a murder. Unless my sister is RESPONSIBLE for the Armageddon coming, which she isn't because we established at the start that she is a total innocent.

If allowing for death to happen due to inaction was murder, we'd all be in prison. I didn't start the apocalypse, my sister didn't start the apocalypse, it was coming either way. If I had the choice to lay down my life to prevent it, I probably would. But if that choice was on my sister, and she said no, anyone who said me fighting to prevent her murder is the same thing as committing murder on the entire human race is ridiculous, and frankly if they actually had to face that scenario I don't believe for a second they would process it in that way.

>>53445982
I frankly cannot fantom which kind of insanity is going through your mind or if you are that butthurt at the manga.

But back to the general question, you are literally blaming humanity for wanting to preserve itself, in a situation that humanity is also suffering from it. Do you think that a human with morals would go 'you know, it would be pretty nice if we could just kill a little girl and save our lives?' Nobody, absolutely nobody except the deranged would want that. But you are completely blind by your feelings and don't see that this situation sucks all around, and that the hero wouldn't even consider this if it wasn't so terrible.

>>53446109
>It's being a computer saving those little kids instead of your old brother?
No. Being computer is calculating that your brother is worth less than kids by using some metric that does not include you in the equation. You pushed yourself outside of humanity and became some kind of extra part to it.

>>53440407
Probably just go for conquering and installing a leftist dystopia.

File: LancerandSaber.png~original.png (434KB, 954x487px)

434KB, 954x487px

>>53445982

Deus fuckin' Vult, mein brethren.

>>53446230
No I'm pretty ok with situation. I'm just stating that if they don't want to try and find another way I will kill them. If I can.

As other anon said - if the girl is ok with dying, that's her choice. If she is not they may come all at once to try and kill her.

>>53446138
Anon, you would actually have a point if you said 'an innocent'. But once again here you are, acting all rightous while your sole motivation is 'she is someone I care about'.

Seriously, listen to yourself. You are so attached to a earthly bound that you are literally letting everyone on the world suffer because of your own selfish feelings. Get a grip.

>>53446273
That's not being a computer anon. Knowing when to deny yourself is a part of every healthy human.

>>53445691
books written in languages other than english

>>53446230

At the end of the day, if you have to commit an obvious and unequivocal evil, even to prevent a larger evil, its not worth it. Something worse will always arise in the end as a result no matter how bad the thing you averted was.

>>53446138
>Are you saying that preserving a life if you know that its preservation will lead to greater death is tantamount to murder?
Yes, it is.

>If allowing for death to happen due to inaction was murder, we'd all be in prison.
There are, actually, laws for that. But do not equate law to morality, because law has to take account of many things that do not concern morality.
Deaths and suffering that happen due to inaction is what spurs a lot of people to action - towards widening our capabilities as species, towards persuading others to organize and help, towards risking own well-being for strangers, etc. No one can deny that morality and guilt are not a part of what motivates those people and makes them regard that fact as a problem to solve.

>>53446318
>No I'm pretty ok with situation. I'm just stating that if they don't want to try and find another way I will kill them. If I can.
So you are pretty ok with protecting someone just by emotional selfishness, no inner greater value? Suit yourself.

>>53446361
>At the end of the day, if you have to commit an obvious and unequivocal evil, even to prevent a larger evil, its not worth it. Something worse will always arise in the end as a result no matter how bad the thing you averted was.
That's a very fair point anon. But if you followed the conversation the point I'm debating is dooming humanity over a personal tie instead of a deeper feeling of individual love for every innocent.

>>53446345
That's where we part ways. I don't see a reason to deny yourself ever. Finding what you care more about when presented with multiple choices? Yes.

Denying your whole involvement? You just became a piece of worthless machine that can be substituted with computer which would work better and faster than you.

>>53446386
There is no greater value.

>>53446320

The specific innocent I'm talking about IS an innocent. I agree with you that my motive being selfish would matter in a more morally grey decision, but we're talking about preventing the murder of an innocent, what the fuck to my motives matter in that instant case.

Now if I said unequivocally that I would myself go out and murder an innocent third party and my motive was to save my sister with no thought for the larger fate of the world, you would have a point that I was evil because of my selfish attachment, that's the whole Darth Vader character arc. But I wouldn't kill an innocent, period, ever, not even to save the world. Not even if the sister I loved begged me to, because that's not even close to the save things as preventing an act of pure evil despite bad consequences and selfish motives.

Honestly I'm not sure what I would do with an unknown 3rd party innocent in this scenario, if I would protect them or choose to stand aside. Its a complex question with a lot of factors. But I absolutely would not kill the innocent, because that's FUCKING MAXIMUM EVIL REGARDLESS OF YOUR MOTIVES.

>>53446425
>I don't see a reason to deny yourself ever.
To avoid fucking everything over by acting with emotion without reason?

>You just became a piece of worthless machine that can be substituted with computer which would work better and faster than you.
Wow I didn't knowing when to act rationally made you a machine. Congrats anon what a smart statement.

>>53446451
There are a lot of greater values than 'he is my friend so he is better than you'.

>>53446519
>To avoid fucking everything over by acting with emotion without reason?
That depends on what you mean when you say 'reason' and 'rationality'.

From my point of view I'm acting pretty reasonably because I do consider possible ramifications of my actions it's just that the basic premise has nothing in common with what you think is 'rational'.

>>53446411

I do follow your point. I'm saying that even in the face of what seems like the worst evil there could possibly be, the extinction of our own species, the act of willfully murdering an innocent to avoid that isn't worth it, and the act of preventing that willful murder is a good act regardless of whether the motive is selfish because it is the prevention of a purely evil act.

To me, that's the long and short of it. Whether you save the innocent because you're selfish and you don't care about the billions who will die because you saved your sister isn't relevant. The choice of the murderer to spill blameless blood was the Most Wrong Choice, and preventing it was right and good.

>>53446507
>agree with you that my motive being selfish would matter in a more morally grey decision, but we're talking about preventing the murder of an innocent, what the fuck to my motives matter in that instant case.
They matter because you wouldn't put yourself at stake if it was for the life of others. Unless you are backtracking on your initial position.

Now your argument is: 'I'm selfish but they are worse'. They aren't worse anon, none of the heroes would be doing that if there was a third option. They just believe that saving a billion little sisters are the priority over her single one. They aren't doing it for their love for themselves, they are doing it for their love for humanity as a whole.

>>53446425
>I don't see a reason to deny yourself ever.
And that's a part of why other people are, ultimately, just tools for you.

>>53446538
>There are a lot of greater values than 'he is my friend so he is better than you'.
Generalise it further and you'll get the whole:

I care about this thing more than this other thing. Therefore the first one has more value than the second.

So yes if there is a choice between a friend and not a friend I will chose friend. Because by very definition friend is someone about whom I care immensely. Unless of course he asks me to change my actions - that can throw a wrench in the gears.

File: 1447115675528.png (116KB, 545x592px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 545x592px

>>53444445
>You are literally saying that someone deserves more than others just because they had the priviliege of being born in closer to you. That's unfair with all those who didn't.
Never have children. Never vote, either. In fact, just kill yourself right now.

>>53446586
It's completely relevant, good isn't selfish. As said before, you cannot claim yourself good and do charity just for popularity. Good is a much higher standard of living, regardless of your feelings.

>>53446538
...And every single one of them is an arbitrary construct invented by human minds.

>>53446583
>That depends on what you mean when you say 'reason' and 'rationality'.
Not really anon. Knowing when to act cold is a necessity for everyone who is on adult life.

>>53446635
>And that's a part of why other people are, ultimately, just tools for you.
Actually the other way around. For when I come to know people I start to care about them.

>>53440407
Clear your name. But everytime you try, things just get even worst.

>>53446643
And that isn't good, which is exactly the point. If you priorize someone just because he is closer than you that is unfair with those who aren't.

>>53446660

The comparison between doing charity to become popular rather than altruism and preventing a murder because you love the murder victim rather than altruism is fucking bonkers and I can't believe you said it twice.

>>53446691
And what do you mean by cold?

Methodically and slowly? I don't see how choosing the path based on your own emotions/attachments/habits prevents that.

>>53446648
Nice attempt, goodness however demands something deeper than standing in your monkeysphere.

>>53446664
>...And every single one of them is an arbitrary construct invented by human minds.
Are we really moving into morality is subjective?

Too bad for you it's not subjective in a fantasy tabletop.

>>53446701

Fucking THIS. The idea that somebody who is willing to let the world burn because they love someone so much also sees humans as objects to be used for their own gain is pretty fucked up. Somebody mentioned Darth Vader, and when Lucas wrote him as doing that everyone said it was fucking shitty writing that ruined the character.

>>53446731
How is it bonkers the difference between being selfish or doesn't?

Here anon, let me draw this for you: if you oppose a murder just because you love the victim, not because you oppose murder you are frankly a horrible person.

File: 1418883061004.png (461KB, 368x701px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 368x701px

>>53446748
People with the mental stature of children prattle about "good" and "evil". There's no such thing. What is true is that attitudes like yours lead to the downfall of societies, and ours is worse for your being in it.

>>53446768

Agreed, lets not devolve into complete moral relativism please...

>>53446740
>And what do you mean by cold?
Detached from your own feelings, impartial.

>I don't see how choosing the path based on your own emotions/attachments/habits prevents that.
It prevents exactly because emotions are clouding your judgement, unless you consider them but dismiss them to act impartially.

>>53446701
Care in what sense? You can very much care about someone you detest, it's not the same thing as the care Fromm wrote about.

>>53446794
>People with the mental stature of children prattle about "good" and "evil".
How about you stop being retarded and leave a discussion about a setting where good and evil are clear concrete values who directly affect the world?

>>53446806
>drawing a dichotomy between emotion and judgment
That guy might be good or he might be evil, but holy shit, you're *wrong*, which is worse than either because you fail *every time*.

>>53446806
>It prevents exactly because emotions are clouding your judgement, unless you consider them but dismiss them to act impartially.
Clouding is when emotions run rampant and mess with your ability to consume and process information to make an informed choice. Using emotions/attachments as a cornerstone of decision making is somewhat another matter.

>>53446832
How about you grow up and realize that settings are made more compelling by nuance and that good and evil being values directly affecting the world doesn't mean they have to be clear and concrete?

>>53446856
Anon, a fair judgement literally DEMANDS that you don't act on your own feelings.

>>53446872
True, but it's unfair for those who don't agree wiht your emotions. I don't think you will find someone who would say "I would like a judge to vote with his feelings", unless they knew the judge was partial to them.

>>53446810
In all of them. Yes I may detest them, I may love them, I may hate them, I may find them funny. All of that and more.

What I do not do is consider people as things to be weighted on some supposedly impartial scales.

I try to treat them as persons with agency and consider it pleasant if they treat me the same in return. If some fucker comes and starts espousing how it is for greater good to kill some of them I'm gonna break him.

>>53446901
>How about you grow up and realize that settings are made more compelling by nuance
Except that means you are homebrewing, which makes you irrelevant to the discussion.

In this discussion they affect the world and then are clear and concrete,as it's literally on the books. So you are either irrelevant or ignorant, either way please leave and stop sharing your stupidity.

>>53446906
>still drawing a distinction between reason and emotion
Whence the criteria by which you determine "fair", if not your feelings? Answers boiling down to "someone else's feelings" need not apply. The only way for a "fair" judgment to be possible by your definition is by random chance, which is the least fair of all.

>>53446768
Yes. Because it is. A human life holds no fundamental value. You are a ball of water, carbon and electrical impulses that thinks it's a person. You are not special. You hold no privileged place in the cosmos. If Earth was obliterated tomorrow, the universe would not mourn your passing, or mine.

And fuck off with your fantasy Manichaeism. This entire discussion up to now has been about real-world ethics. And guess what? In the real world, there are a lot of "right" answers. Because man is the measure of all things, including morality.

>>53446784
If someone sees those he does not know as nameless "masses", fit to die for his own happiness, I'd say he does see humans as objects to be used.

>>53446949
>deendee is the only system and it is the only thing we may discuss at any time ever
Ugh. Follow the reply chain. We left those grounds dozens of posts ago.

>>53446906
>I don't think you will find someone who would say "I would like a judge to vote with his feelings", unless they knew the judge was partial to them.

I will. For judge is supposed to care about justice and his work more than about anything else (Which is most of the time is not true).

You can have attachments to abstract ideas that trump everything.

>>53446953
>Whence the criteria by which you determine "fair", if not your feelings?
By analyzing all factors involved, the damage and acting accordingly.

>The only way for a "fair" judgment to be possible by your definition is by random chance, which is the least fair of all.
I didn't know it was a random chance to say that for example, the guy who destroyed the car of another should pay him for the damages.
>inb4anoninsertsalotofvariablesthatdoesn'texistinthisquickexample

>>53446955
>Yes. Because it is. A human life holds no fundamental value.
Except that's not canon so please fuck off.

>>53446958
They are potential anon. Potential friends, lovers, enemies, colleagues and so on.

>>53447000
It's great sport and all to toss around words like "analyze" and "accordingly", but you're just dodging the question. By what metric do you analyze these factors; by what means do you determine what is accordant; and whence any of these?

ITT Justicars and Jedi debate the nature of good and evil with normal people

>>53446974
Which system says that good isn't selfless? You will have a hard time finding one.

Unless you want to go to real life 'moral relativism', which clearly isn't worth discussing.

>>53447000
>By analyzing all factors involved, the damage and acting accordingly.
And as I said before you became a machine that calculates "damage".

>>53446937
That still applies only to people you know and who provoked some sort of emotion from you. The rest may as well not exist to you, and you weight them on scales as close to nothing - but they are people.

File: 1420318986410.jpg (90KB, 500x710px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x710px

>>53447066
>you shouldn't discuss things because it flusters my butt when I'm shown to be wrong

>>53446978
>I will. For judge is supposed to care about justice and his work more than about anything else (Which is most of the time is not true).
Yes, that's easy to type. But I'm sure in real life you would be pissed if a judge said "I considered the case, plus my feelings, so I give the win to that other person".

>>53447039
>By what metric do you analyze these factors; by what means do you determine what is accordant; and whence any of these?
I dunno anon, how about property damages? Physical damage? Mental damage? Agravants? External factors?

>>53447097
Yes and? I will still be pissed even if he made a mistake while upholding what is considered justice by the laws. It's just that my reasons will be different.

Judge made an agreement with people (even through third hands) that he will do certain work. When he fails at it everyone slighted will be pissed.

>>53447071
>And as I said before you became a machine that calculates "damage".
Using your brain and getting a concrete value isn't being a machine, it's being fair.

File: scumbag-gilgamesh-1-now-shut-up-and-shitpost.jpg (26KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x350px

>>53444864
>>53440704
>World dying because overpopulation means every individual soul is less powerful, less potent, less meaningful because there is only a finite quantity of such things to go around in the setting.
>If things continue the way they're going there will literally be no more heroes and the world will become a dead, dry, boring place where people do nothing but eat, sleep, and shitpost.
>World literally sends Mankind a glorious golden savior on a golden platter.
>He's killed by a traumatized child with survivor guilt who sees this outcome as desirable.

Gilgamesh did literally nothing wrong.

>>53447137
How did you come up with these factors? What metrics are you using to *measure* them? How do you determine what does or does not constitute damage; aggravation; externality; and how do you determine their severity?

>>53447030
Potential? So there's nothing bad in burning off some of that potential to convert it into some happiness? You've never had it, so what's the point crying about it?
They are not potential beings. They are actual people - friends, lovers, enemies - but not yours.

>>53447096
Actually it's more like that moral relativism has nothing to discuss. "I think it's wrong", "well that's your opinion, I disagree". You literally cannot be wrong you retard, it's 'relativism'.

>>53447155
>>53447137
But you act exactly like a machine. You made a metric with weights for different actions/outcomes, removed yourself from equation and calculate everything by this metric. We don't need person for that a computer with no self-awareness will do.

>>53447180

Hey, he's the one who said that a copy could never defeat the original. If he was wrong than by his own standards and logic he was NOT our savior because his entire raison d'etre is that he is perfect and never wrong.

>>53447197
>I don't understand it so stop discussing it

>>53447147
>Yes and? I will still be pissed even if he made a mistake while upholding what is considered justice by the laws.
But you will be pissed at the laws, not at the judge being impartial.

>>53447188
There is something bad, but less than in burning people close to me. You also assume that happiness and acting on your own emotions/attachments is the same. Hedonism is a separate case.

>>53447180
>World dying because overpopulation means every individual soul is less powerful, less potent, less meaningful because there is only a finite quantity of such things to go around in the setting.

>Souls lessen in value because some Anon Godhead progressively runs out of fucks for each of them
>When there's no more fucks to spare, he just destroys everything and starts over, recreating the most interesting people in brand new universe

>>53447181
>How did you come up with these factors?
Have you studied law? Do you know how it works?

>What metrics are you using to *measure* them?
Analyzing the factors.

>How do you determine what does or does not constitute damage; aggravation; externality; and how do you determine their severity?
By studying and knowing how to examine the situation.

>>53447223
And Shirou didn't defeat him. Gilgamesh would have killed him if the Holy Grail hadn't eaten him and Archer finished him off.

>>53447097
>I considered the case, plus my feelings, so I give the win to that other person
This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do. It's the entire reason why cases are heard by judges rather than processed as a matter of course by a battery of pencil-pushers.

>>53447258
Actually unless I'm mistaken there's works set in the future in the Nasuverse and its basically post-apoc.

Great job breaking it Shirou. We could have overcame humanity, but he gave us the Last Man.

>>53447226
Okay anon, tell me how you are going to prove my morality is wrong when morality is subjective.

>>53447231
And? I still don't see what you are trying to say.

In the end outcome is - judge either made an honest mistake and I consider him an idiot, or he misjudged on purpose and I consider him an adversary. Either way there is some type of connection forming which later will be used to judge the judge.

>>53447286
It is not mine morality therefore it's wrong.

>>53447261
>Have you studied law?
Don't confuse what is legal with what is right. We're talking about morality, here, not jurisprudence. Are you saying that you derive your system of values from what is legal? That just makes you a high-functioning sociopath.
>Analyzing the factors.
You're not even trying anymore.
>By studying and knowing how to examine the situation.
Studying what? Knowing what? Where does all of this come from? Legislature? Christ Jesus? Mommy and daddy? *Where*?

>>53447242
And I still stand that value of their lives do not depend on a viewpoint of a man.
In the case of >>53446784, it's pretty much about happiness.

>>53447203
Except that a machine cannot act when there are conflicts.

...in fact anon, removing your emotions from the process don't even mean being emotionless. It means being unbiased from your own beliefs.

>>53447284
Small wonder I don't like Nasuverse much.
But it's an interesting premise.

>>53447347
And I say that value of life is entirely dependant on a viewpoint of a man - the one to whom this life belongs.

>>53447268

That sounds like an excuse by Gilgamesh standards. He's so perfect and amazing as the King Of Heroes something as minor as Archer and the Grail should have had no impact on his efforts to fight with Shirou. He didn't have any concern about the effect the presence of all the other heroes might have when he was fighting Berserker by the docks, you think he would have whined about Iskander or Saber ambushing him during that fight? No, he would have just turned and kept fighting because bitching about it would have undermined his entire being.

Also by the time Archer and the Grail got involved he'd already lost. He lost ideologically the moment he was forced to draw Ea, and the fact that he lost an arm AFTER he did that just confirms it.

Also if he hadn't cut off that arm the Grail wouldn't have been able to attack him. Also Shirou keeping him at bay for so long was why Saber and Rin could destroy the grail, which ruined his plans regardless of whether Shirou lived or not. Also a dozen other things.

Point is, regardless of literally any factors that contributed, Gil lost the fight and thus was wrong by his own beliefs.

>>53447270
>This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do.
Where does it say that a judge should judge with his feels? A judge should use his feelings only when the case nuances demands it, otherwise he needs to follow the law.

>>53447363
>Except that a machine cannot act when there are conflicts.
Wrong. That's pretty shitty program if it can't get out of the simplest weighting.

>>53447302
>And? I still don't see what you are trying to say.
That one is a personal fault, the other isn't.

>>53447407
So as long as he gains power over someone else's life, he get to quantify its' value?

File: 1483980023933.gif (1MB, 430x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 430x360px

>>53447419
>you're never supposed to make judgments with your feelings except when you are supposed to make judgments with your feelings

>>53447342
From those who define them, in law legislature, in church doctrine Jesus, in a fantasy setting from the gods and the books.

Unless you are another going for 'moral relativism', which doesn't exist in a thread about DMs, evil and villains.

>>53447435
In his own eyes? He doesn't even need to get power, he already can do it at any moment. Doesn't mean it will align with what the other one thinks about this.

File: 9f3317fab51c496d44f72dca71afa020.jpg (51KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x500px

>>53447385
Its basically a Nietzchean conflict over what is preferable as an ideal.

Gilgamesh, representing the Overman, argues that conflict, strife, and suffering are necessary parts of existence that should be embraced, and no world that excludes them can possibly be called perfect. He stands as one who can create his own values, take responsibility for his own life, and find meaning in it.

Shirou represents the Last Man, whose goal is a world that is completely at peace, with no strife, difficulty, pain, or death. A common utopian ideal, that Shirou terms "Justice", and is so self-denying in his pursuit of it that he is likened to a machine instead of a human being. Unlike Gilgamesh, who is almost pure ego, Shirou is almost pure no-ego, barely comprehending himself as anything more then a force to bring about "Justice".

I don't know that I entirely agree with either of them, but personally I find Gilgamesh to be far closer to the Truth then Shirou.

>>53447466
See >>53446953
>Answers boiling down to "someone else's feelings" need not apply.
You're just shirking responsibility now. You really are no better than a machine, huh?

>>53447429
>Wrong. That's pretty shitty program if it can't get out of the simplest weighting.
Make a program then that can deal with those then.

>>53447443
>I'm retarded the post
You aren't supposed to judge with your feelings unless it's a nebolous question that isn't covered and thus requires those.

>>53447466
>Unless you are another going for 'moral relativism', which doesn't exist in a thread about DMs, evil and villains.
But it does. There is at least one morality system per player and DM, plus what is in the books.

>>53447493
We're human beings; moral actors. Not agents of the law. Every question is nebulous.

>>53447480
So it's back to subjective morality, aka got mine fuck you.

>>53447490
How so? Morality is derived from somewhere unless it's relativism, and if it's relativism you literally cannot judge because it's relative.

>>53447531
I'm asking you where you derive yours, and how you decided it was a good place to derive it from.

>>53447413
The only thing he was 'wrong' about was his failure to realize until it was too late how powerful Unlimited Blade Works was against Gate of Babylon, and his pride keeping him from drawing Ea fast enough.

If he had drawn Ea from the start, UBW would have shattered just like Ionian Hetairoi was and the whole plan would have gone off without a hitch.

Which is a failing on Gilgamesh's part, but not a commentary on the overall necessity of the plan, or on Shirou's status as a fucking mongrel.

>>53447517
>We're human beings; moral actors. Not agents of the law. Every question is nebulous.
Not really. Saying 'drunk driving is worth a fine of 3k plus community service' doesn't leave space for interpretation, unless the case adds more nuances.

File: 1398992840815.gif (460KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 600x450px

>>53447558
>Lawful = Good

>>53447502
Not really anon. The morality isn't relative in the setting unless the DM homebrews it.

>>53447520
And consensus morality. When people agree that some system will align with moralities for most of them.

>>53447567
Did you miss the conversation or you wanted to shitpost?

>>53447546
In this thread it's from the standard fantasy goodness, that is in the deepest selfless versus selfishness.

>>53447576
That's assuming that player in question cares about what is written in his "alignment" line instead of caring about personality of his character and leaving descriptor up to DM.

>>53447586
You're the one missing the conversation. We're talking about whether someone is good or evil for prioritizing the lives of those who are close to him over the lives of those who aren't. Law is an easy thing to make analogies with, but it's ultimately a map of a different territory and it's not what we're talking about.

>>53447608
If he doesn't care about his alignment, then that is relativism and thus worthless. Good is whatever the DM says it is.

>>53447481
Overman does not seem to suffer, and conflict does not really concern him. He's just as much of a machine - machine of perfect, immutable solipsistic existence - as the utopian. But solipsism is more human than pure functional living.

>>53447611
It does show up however that you can take a human question and use concrete values upon it, as I said before damage not only physical but also social.

>>53447603
Where is that derived from, and why do you think it makes good stories? Why do you not consider that alternative bases for goodness can be equally valid for building interesting characters? Why do you shit on Anon for promulgating a system of values different from one created without much thought in a cultural milieu decades to centuries old?

>>53447632
You are wrong. The Overman is a being defined in large part by conflict, strife, and continual overcoming.

>>53447660
Why are you retarded anon? Why don't you get that's it's worthless to discuss things when you homebrew because good is whatever the DM decides it is?

Discussion actually ended there anon. There is nothing else. If you aren't going to use the objective source of morality then it's relative, so whatever the DM says goes.

>>53447654
But it still remains for you to explain whence these concrete values, if not from your feels, someone else's feels, or by committee of feels. Do you own a magical, moral yardstick? Why not share it with us?

>>53447627
And here we come to the interesting part - the one of consensus. Players and DM agree to play using morality system that they all agree on. Some may not agree and ergo won't play.

>>53447699
>But it still remains for you to explain whence these concrete values
From the setting concrete values.

>>53447707
This. If you don't agree with DM don't play.

File: 1419785383148.jpg (86KB, 650x427px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 650x427px

>>53447726
>

File: NANO MAHCHINES.jpg (28KB, 510x522px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 510x522px

>>53440407
be the evil the world needs

>>53447548

This is GIL'S logic. He is infallible, therefore his plan is right, correct and necessary. But if he loses, especially because of ignorance and arrogance which are the two things he CONSTANTLY accuses his opponents of and clearly states is what MAKES them mongrels, then he isn't perfect, so how can his plan be right, correct and necessary?

The might of the king is what defines right and wrong. If he loses, it thus follows that the one who defeated him must be the one who is right.

>>53447736
I know you are trolling anon, but in your books it clearly says what are the concrete values of good. Feel free to take a read.

>>53447693
>>53447699
This. The question is from what principle or principles are the values in your fantasy setting derived.

The will of the gods?
A metaphysical force like the Rta or the Tao?
Social convention?
The "Morality as several concrete forces" of many D&D settings?

Where? Even if we're just discussing storytelling and not philosophy, it pays to pay attention to this in systems with Morality mechanics because it explains just what exactly good and evil ARE.

In a setting with Divine Command morality, the "evil" are just lawbreakers and rebels, possibly justified by their own morality. In their own minds they may be more Good, and even to other people more sympathetic, then what is defined as good by the gods.

If its social convention, then we get the same situation, with competing moralities and philosophies as we have in real life.

If its a Tao-force or Alignment Forces, we can get scientific measures of Goodness and Badness, and the very interesting question of whether Good is necessarily good.

>>53447546
I derive mine from the fact that we, as species, have a biological basis for caring about a relatively small amount of brethren, and that expanding this amount lead us, as species, to great things. Including our asses sitting here and discussing morality, and not trying constantly to destroy and fuck over those damn fuckers from hills over there.

>>53447749
Way to miss the entire spirit of this whole conversation.

>>53447748
1. Its not his might alone, its his will that defines them.

2. He calls his opponents mongrels not because of their ignorance or arrogance, but because of their weakness and flawed ideals. Iskandar he admits isn't a mongrel, and actually compliments because they have similar ideologies. The main difference is that Iskandar has retainers and Gilgamesh feels no need for retainers.

>>53443552
what are the races of these people

>>53443552
Hypothetically, am I standing up or sitting down? If sitting down, is the lever within an arm's reach?

Also, in this scenario how busy am I? Am I, like, in the middle of a video game or something?

This is important information that I need to know to make a decision.

>>53447767
What kind of great things? Why are they great? Why are they *good*? Why is collectivism more moral than individualism?

>>53440407

The Character is just a textbook fascist. He is a diehard racial/religious supremacist and tries to carve his own empire out.

He is ready to do anything that is required to reach that goal and strictly believes this is the best for the future.

>>53447286
The point of moral relativism isn't to prove all morality is wrong. It's to try and make you realise that all morality is right.

You know all those ethical conundrums people bring up, like the Trolley Problem? The point of those conundrums isn't for you to solve them, like some Kobayashi Maru bullshit. The point is to highlight the fact that there are many ways of looking at an ethical problem, and just as many "right" answers. A man might abstain from killing an innocent to save further lives, because they hold murder of any kind to be immoral. Another man might kill an innocent, because they feel that the greater potential loss outweighs the assured loss of the individual. But neither man is Evil - they simply have different worldviews and values.

The point is to make you THINK. To step outside yourself and see things from other people's perspectives. To make you consider that, hey, maybe that guy over there thinks you're just as Evil as you think he is, and you both have good reasons for feeling that way. That just because everyone says something is good or bad, does not make it so.

>>53447675
Yes, continual overcoming is what leads him to be as I said. If Overman falters, he's no Overman. So Overman is predestined to gain in every possible conflict - and I think that only a being that is more powerful than every possible force can be Overman. Therefore, the strife to it is like breathing to us - we'll die without it, but it doesn't define us personally.

>>53447905
The problem of course is that such deconstructions are invitations to reconstruction. The ideal behind this kind of Zen sentiment is that once we all realize all moralities are equally true, we'll develop a new humanitarian morality based on mutual respect. The opposite conclusion, that we devote ourselves entirely to our own philosophy without any humane sentiment to hold us back from it is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Its a very difficult question. If all value-sets are ultimately derivative from axioms, how can we compare value-sets without being self-referential?

>>53447767
So you derive your sense of morality from behaviour that evolved to ensure the continued existence of your genes.

So if cannibalism and child-rape were evolutionary beneficial, you'd believe those behaviours were "good" too?

>>53447957
>Its a very difficult question. If all value-sets are ultimately derivative from axioms, how can we compare value-sets without being self-referential?
Should we?

File: 1474237550164.jpg (28KB, 236x360px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 236x360px

>>53448019
We must. We should look at the full problem, to get a grasp of the scope of it.

All value-sets [which includes moralities] are formal or informal hierarchies of imagined preferences in which some things are desired for the sake of other things, some for their own sake, and some for both. This pyramid of value forms the different philosophies of Mankind.

When we engage in moral debates, what we're really doing 95% of the time is making a crucial error. We're assuming the other person already agrees with us about some higher principle in the value-set, and that his current views on a lesser principle is a result of his failure to see the contradiction involved. The reality, that even his higher principles are different, is almost never seen [as provided for in your example]

The problem of course is that once we know this fact, once we KNOW that all value-sets lack any kind of metaphysical preference, the question of "Objective Morality" comes into view. We ask ourselves "What does it mean for a morality to be objective?"

That it is universally known of?
That it is universally followed?
That it is universally enforced?
That it derives itself from some principle of God or Nature?

Most of these possibilities either do not exist, or do not resolve the problem at all. For instance, the existence of a God only provides for objective morality on a purely realpolitik basis. He has the power to enforce His values on others.
[cont]

>>53448122
The only way I know of to actually resolve the problem, would be to prove that all conscious minds actually possess certain meta-values implicit in their being conscious minds. That is, that all Mankind actually desires the same, ultimate, foundation SOMETHINGS [I have no idea what, becoming or craving are two possibilities] at which point all value-sets could be judged on the basis of efficiency as the 'traditional moral arguing' is restored, since they really DO have some highest principle in common to which we can argue a contradiction.

If this is not in fact the case, then we live in a completely existentialist cosmos, and have NO REASON AT ALL to suppose that Mankind will, or even 'should' naturally come to believe in western democratic socialist liberal values.

>>53447768
Which spirit? The spirit if it's good in a fantasy setting, so you use the fantasy good rule to define it.

>>53447754
In most fantasy settings good is literally an objective energy. You can do like Thamar and say that you are the actual good, but anyone with a bit of sense will call you on your shenanigans.

>>53448132
Considering how evolution/natural selection work it is unlikely. For even if there is/was a set of prevalent values mutations and different evolutionary pressures would mess it up.

>>53447827
Because it's more moral to save a lot of individuals than a single one.

>>53447905
Of course all morality is right in the eyes of the beholder. Heck Stalin, Hitler and Mao thought they were moral.

The point is that if morality is subjective then there is no conclusion in discussing morality, you may try change to someone opinion but if you cannot it's end there. You cannot claim to be good if you don't have a concrete value of what good is.

>>53448213
You're first of all assuming the values in question are extremely prevalent things like "Survival" or "Benevolence"

The metavalues would have to be far subtler then that.

Secondly, if the metavalues were only implict in humanity, not in consciousness itself, the solution would only be local. Beings with different psychologies and biologies would sidestep the solution entirely, effectively undoing it.

>>53448247
>Because it's more moral to save a lot of individuals than a single one.
Even if they are serial killers that will go on a new killer spree each?

>>53448247
And the point is also if morality is objective, you must demonstrate HOW and also what it means for it to be objective.

What does it MEAN for a certain set of evaluations to be objective, and how does your philosophy fit that criteria while others do not?

>>53447968
>So if cannibalism and child-rape were evolutionary beneficial,
How would they be beneficial anon?

This is as retarded as saying 'if you shoot yourself in the head and grew a better head would it be okay shooting yourself in the head?'

Those things are bad especially because they are harmful.

>>53440407
I always like Immortality. Not specifically evil until the DM makes it evil.

>>53448300
He's saying if your morality is set by what is evolutionary beneficial then this requires you to approve of any successful evolutionary strategy, even ones such as parasitism and extremely predatory behavior that many humans would find revolting.

The problem with deriving your philosophy from Nature is that Nature is ruthlessly efficient and hopelessly cruel. If you're going to define the Good by evolutionary success, then you have to stick to that, even if the results lead you in unwholesome directions.

>>53448273
>Even if they are serial killers that will go on a new killer spree each?
I love loaded questions.

First off, where in the law forfeits the right of serial killers to live? Because if you are in favor of moral relativism those who hold all human life sacred will disagree with you.

Second, with which magical power you define they will go kill new people?

>>53448285
>And the point is also if morality is objective, you must demonstrate HOW and also what it means for it to be objective.
By examining the setting rules that define what goodness is.

>What does it MEAN for a certain set of evaluations to be objective, and how does your philosophy fit that criteria while others do not?
Because my philosophy fits the standard of fantasy good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=028biemEgEM

muh dick

>>53448247
>The point is that if morality is subjective then there is no conclusion in discussing morality, you may try change to someone opinion but if you cannot it's end there.
Try not to think of it in such hidebound terms. Just because you're not able to prove yourself right by pointing to chapter 3 section A in The Big Book Of Rules doesn't mean there's no meaning in the discussion.

>>53448343
>He's saying if your morality is set by what is evolutionary beneficial then this requires you to approve of any successful evolutionary strategy, even ones such as parasitism and extremely predatory behavior that many humans would find revolting.
I'm not that anon, but that was an extremely retarded statement. It's like saying 'if good was bad would you still like good'.

>The problem with deriving your philosophy from Nature is that Nature is ruthlessly efficient and hopelessly cruel. If you're going to define the Good by evolutionary success, then you have to stick to that, even if the results lead you in unwholesome directions.
Mother nature actually did provide the base for empathy which is one of the most universal standards of good, so I find kinda funny your 'hopeless cruel.'

>>53448347
>First off, where in the law forfeits the right of serial killers to live? Because if you are in favor of moral relativism those who hold all human life sacred will disagree with you.
I thought it was about a choice between one man and multiple people. Not about laws.

>Second, with which magical power you define they will go kill new people?
Previous experience. They don't have any reasons to change and in fact in many cases they are incapable.

>>53448377
>Just because you're not able to prove yourself right by pointing to chapter 3 section A in The Big Book Of Rules doesn't mean there's no meaning in the discussion.
Okay anon, how do you prove yourself right if the other person don't agree with your fact and logic and substitutes them by his own?

>>53448454
Is this what this is all about to you?

>>53448393
You can't possibly be so stupid as to believe that evolutionary success equates to universal benevolence.

There are species who engage in cannibalism, rape, casual murder, genocide, and worse and in all these cases these species survive and thrive, not in spite of, but because of these behaviors.

From a perspective of strict evolutionary success, the only benevolence that is useful is tribal in-group social behavior except when out-group social behavior is used to discourage out-groups from attacking.

The fact that your in-group currently covers enough people that practically speaking behaviors like killing and rape are useless doesn't change the fact that that is purely a statement about your material conditions. In less civilized conditions, if you are to be consistent with your philosophy, your evolutionary strategy would require you to shrink your ingroup and engage in violent or unwholesome behavior for the sake of guaranteeing your genes are passed on.

But you don't want that. You don't want a morality that actually requires you to think through when benevolence is useful or a hindrance in the context of passing on your genes, because that requires you to create an actually novel philosophy. What you WANT is to use science as an ad-hoc justification for what is essentially a demythologized Christian morality.

File: 1418532914202.jpg (167KB, 405x412px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 405x412px

>>53448343
>Nature is ruthlessly efficient
>trial-and-error through random mutation with zero oversight
>ruthlessly efficient

>>53448449
>I thought it was about a choice between one man and multiple people. Not about laws.
Yes, and the societal values in our current society would priorize saving those serial killers, just like our laws are based on them.

>Previous experience. They don't have any reasons to change and in fact in many cases they are incapable.
Conjecture so completely worthless.

>>53448464
Yes, because we are talking about evil in a fictional setting.

If you want to have a deep discussion about morality then it's no longer /tg/, unless of course you are DMing a system that use moral relativism.

>>53448454
Hmm, other Anon, why do I need to prove it? Why can't I just state my point of view with what I see as main reasons for it and allow the other party to agree or disagree?

>>53448498
Maybe in your society.

>>53448497
Well, unsuccessful strategies don't survive, so it's efficient in at least one respect.

File: 1481606549028.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

>>53448518
Man there is no point in talking with you so I'm just going to disparage your person instead.
>I only partake in discussions to prove myself right
>if I can't prove myself right in a simple and easy way that my tiny mind can handle then I just set arbitrary restrictions on the discussion until I can win
>I suck dicks for money and pleasure
^ you

>>53448489
>You can't possibly be so stupid as to believe that evolutionary success equates to universal benevolence.
Evolutionary success requires universal benevolence you retard. There is a reason why social creatures work better and why humanity is the current top species.

It was completely moral for example genocide wars in the rock/bronze ages where resources were scarce, but it's completely immoral in our current age since the result would be disastrous. We evolved past that. Evolution works closely with social progress, you will see that much of it (such as banning slavery) came exactly when those things stopped being beneficial as a whole.

File: 1490239092908.png (163KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 499x499px

>>53448621
>Evolutionary success just so happens to be equate with the expansion and development of an extremely modern philosophy that happens to be in the vogue in my own civilization, and agrees with the sensibilities of most people

>>53448260
Should we value consciousness itself, or just human-like consciousness - that which sprang from species with similar psychology?
Funny how assumption that other intelligent beings are valuable is itself a result of natural tendency to anthropomorphise.

>>53448654
That's just the thing, without knowing the metavalues themselves I can't answer definitely any value-judgment like that.

If I was to extrapolate from vague assumption, I would say we should 'value' all consciousnesses with which we can engage in reciprocal arrangements, regardless of how alien.

>>53448518
>unless of course you are DMing a system that use moral relativism.

Oh, you mean the vast majority of systems in existence?

Alignment is something that basically only D&D and its variants do. Almost every other system I can think of (except for maybe the Star Wars RPGs) discards the idea of moral alignment entirely, and for damned good reasons.

>>53448689
That's still based on morals informed by our natural tendencies and by selection of those morals.

I personally don't think that there's much meaning in universal metavalues which must account for every possible kind of sentient life.
We are humans and subjective human morale is good enough for us. I am utilitarian and view morale as a tool for a species to survive and thrive. It's not like universal set of rules for that can be pulled out of anyone's mind.

>>53448523
You can do that, but then it's worthless defining it as good or evil, or hero or villlain because the other party can just disagree.

>>53448539
You mean most westernized societies? I invite you to read the law where it says that serial killers don't have right to live, unless you live in a state that has death penalty... and even then that doesn't excuse the state in don't saving those people.

>>53448571
>I want to discuss relative values
>in a place that doesn't use relative values
You are the one retarded anon. Leave and .

>>53448621
>social creatures work better

I- what? What do you mean "work better"? By what metric?

>>53448866

See >>53448786, you fucking drooling moron.

>>53448652
Yes anon, evolutionary success is very closed with modern philosophy. There is a reason why our population is on the billions when compared to the lower ages: social and technological progress.

File: ramp3.jpg (58KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x346px

>>53448842
True, but in absence of knowing these metavalues [if they exist] we are left in a purely existentialist cosmos. My own cobbled-together philosophy, formed by my will to power, my aesthetic ideas on what is noble, strong, and wise, and the commands of the Most High probably contrasts greatly with yours. To be honest I hate utilitarianism. Its a pigs philosophy.

>>53448786
>Oh, you mean the vast majority of systems in existence?
You mean inpopular and pretty much worthless systems?

My belief is not only closed with D&D, it's the same in all major moderate or nobledark fantasy systems.

>>53448898
And yet ants outnumber us by several orders of magnitude, and do so without our vast scientific knowledge base.

>>53448897
By metric of scale and modifying circumstances to their own favor?

>>53448897
>I- what? What do you mean "work better"? By what metric?
Evolutionary metric. Creatures who work in society thrive more than loners.

>See >>53448786, you fucking drooling moron.
Stop being retarded. This applies to most fantasy settings, unless you mean a bunch of unknown or the grimdark ones (which are grimdark for a reason).

>>53448924
>>53448898
This. Even if I grant you that western values and philosophy, taken as an evolutionary strategy is functioning and will continue to function [and I don't grant that in the slightest], and even if i ignore the fact that you're ignoring the difference between western values and applied science [I won't ignore that]

There is still the fact that your philosophy still demands you see grass as a more noble species that we are. and benevolence as purely of contingent value.

>>53448924
>And yet ants outnumber us by several orders of magnitude, and do so without our vast scientific knowledge base.
And they are very social creatures, who are much more evolved in empathy than several others.

And I hope outnumber you mean only on number, because no race has topped the achievements of the human race.

>>53448621
>I don't understand evolution: the post

>>53448979
You're using the word "achievement" which implies the highest value is something like Truth or the merit of civilization, not pure evolutionary success in terms of having an effective strategy to guarantee survival.

You still don't see that you're philosophy isn't really an evolutionary one, its a pseudo-Christian one with evolutionary trappings. You aren't judging things by the axioms of evolution, you're applying evolutionary principles backwards to justify common social conventions.

>>53448999
Ikr? He probably thinks evolution "progresses" and that we're "more advanced" then we used to be.

>>53448957
>There is still the fact that your philosophy still demands you see grass as a more noble species that we are. and benevolence as purely of contingent value.
Is this some type of insane logic?

How is grass, a completely different lifeform, more successful than the human race, the only race that managed to adapt to everything?

>>53448926
Again: ants, flies, pigeons and rats all outnumber us, and do so without any our special benevolence or intelligence.

And by the way we're going, they'll probably all out-live us, the way we're treating Earth's biosphere.

>>53448949
>Creatures who work in society thrive more than loners.

What. You need to define what you mean by "thrive", because last I checked, there were plenty of animals on this planet that outnumbered us, which were not social in the slightest. Being a loner is a perfectly viable survival strategy.

>>53448979
>Ants
>Empathy

Holy fucking shit, are you an alien? Do you live on planet Earth? Where in the fuck do you get the idea that ants are empathetic from?

>>53448916
>Its a pigs philosophy.
It would befit me.

>My own cobbled-together philosophy probably contrasts greatly with yours
I don't think it's bad. If something like your philosophy or even the philosophy of sister-saver will turn mine obsolete, that would mean it will serve humanity better.

Truly universal morale system would probably be a beautiful thing, though.

>>53448999
>I don't understand evolution: the post
Feel free to prove that evolution is not connected to empathy. I wait.

>>53449004
>You're using the word "achievement" which implies the highest value is something like Truth or the merit of civilization, not pure evolutionary success in terms of having an effective strategy to guarantee survival.
Except that humans achievements made it the most thriving race on the planet?

>You still don't see that you're philosophy isn't really an evolutionary one, its a pseudo-Christian one with evolutionary trappings. You aren't judging things by the axioms of evolution, you're applying evolutionary principles backwards to justify common social conventions.
It's evolutionary, because all fucking religions and all morality has a base on the initial evolutionary traits.

>>53449021
We are more advanced than we used to be anon. You are retarded if you don't compare the world of today with our previous ages and don't see it.

>>53449031
Because you dolt, evolution isn't a linear process from amoebas to Man, with some glorious endpoint where we're "most evolved".

Evolution is a measure of the ability of species to adapt to their conditions in order to survive and pass on their genes. It has nothing to do with common human values except insofar as those values are useful for that end.

A species that is the most prevalent, the most resilient, the most adaptable, the least likely to die out and go extinct is the supreme species. The fact that social behavior and intelligence are SOMETIMES a useful evolutionary strategy doesn't change that fact.

What you keep wanting to do is start with the assumption that human endeavor is meaningful and then backtrack and point out how human endeavor kept us alive. Granted!

But to be consistent you can't give that strategy predominance over other strategies that are equally or more successful.

>>53449053
>What. You need to define what you mean by "thrive", because last I checked, there were plenty of animals on this planet that outnumbered us, which were not social in the slightest.

Such as?

>Holy fucking shit, are you an alien? Do you live on planet Earth? Where in the fuck do you get the idea that ants are empathetic from?
Do you see ants killing each other in the hive, like certain other species does?

They don't have empathy such as mammals, but they are social creatures. They evolued enough to know that working together for the hive is better for everyone.

>>53449109
>Do you see ants killing each other in the hive, like certain other species does?

Yes, all the time. Ants regularly commit genocide on other hives in order to spread their genes, as well as enslave and sometimes eat the opposition. You're fucking naive to think that social behavior is universal. By nature, most social species function with a limited social network where those within the group are treated well and those without it are garbage or at least treated ambivalently.

File: 1349909715883.jpg (65KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 566x480px

>>53449082
>Except that humans achievements made it the most thriving race on the planet?

>>53449082
>Feel free to prove that evolution is not connected to empathy. I wait.

Sure!

Wasps of the genus Glyptapanteles lay their eggs inside the bodies of caterpillars. These eggs later hatch, and the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. By all evidence, these wasps have been getting along just fine this way for millions of years. Theirs is a perfectly viable survival strategy.

>>53449091
>Because you dolt, evolution isn't a linear process from amoebas to Man, with some glorious endpoint where we're "most evolved".
It isn't a linear process, but the matter is that amoebas did evolve into man because evolution pushed us to develop advantageous traits.

>
Evolution is a measure of the ability of species to adapt to their conditions in order to survive and pass on their genes. It has nothing to do with common human values except insofar as those values are useful for that end.
Except that human values are directly connected with our species success. For example, if we didn't enforce murder everyone would be in fear of being murdered.

>
A species that is the most prevalent, the most resilient, the most adaptable, the least likely to die out and go extinct is the supreme species. The fact that social behavior and intelligence are SOMETIMES a useful evolutionary strategy doesn't change that fact.
Sometimes? Are you retarded?

Intelligence and social values is what made humans adaptable everywhere. Even out of our planet. Which other earthly species can colonize the universe?

>What you keep wanting to do is start with the assumption that human endeavor is meaningful and then backtrack and point out how human endeavor kept us alive. Granted!
Of course it's meaningful. There is no backtrack, the point is that moral progressed as human societies evolved. The world is definitely more moral today then it was in the bronze ages.

>But to be consistent you can't give that strategy predominance over other strategies that are equally or more successful.
Which other strategy created as much success as the human race?

>>53449170
GRASS.
ANTS.
ROACHES.
Most types of plants and insects actually.

Fuck, you still don't get it. If your measure of success is evolution, you can't turn around and say that a more successful species that invented less shit is inferior. If "invents shit" is your highest value, THEN your philosophy would make sense, but it would also have nothing to do with evolution.

>>53449144
>Yes, all the time. Ants regularly commit genocide on other hives in order to spread their genes, as well as enslave and sometimes eat the opposition
>in the hive
Learn to read.

>You're fucking naive to think that social behavior is universal. By nature, most social species function with a limited social network where those within the group are treated well and those without it are garbage or at least treated ambivalently.
Except that no, while we have those who we hold dear we still managed to unite ourselves in countries because that is much more beneficially than living in tribes. We may care less for those further than us, but we get for example angrier if a countryman is killed than a non-countryman.

>>53449166
We are the best race in the planet anon. Sorry if this somehow hurts your sensibilities, but humans are the only species who have mastered it.

>>53449169
>Wasps of the genus Glyptapanteles lay their eggs inside the bodies of caterpillars. These eggs later hatch, and the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. By all evidence, these wasps have been getting along just fine this way for millions of years. Theirs is a perfectly viable survival strategy.
When did those wasps create something that changed their enviroment to be more favourable, like humans developing cold and temperate equipment or genetic modifying food?

>>53449203
None of those species managed to actually control their environments.

>Fuck, you still don't get it. If your measure of success is evolution, you can't turn around and say that a more successful species that invented less shit is inferior. If "invents shit" is your highest value, THEN your philosophy would make sense, but it would also have nothing to do with evolution.
Except that evolution made us more intelligent than the other species. There is a reason why we survived and the primordial men were completely wiped out.

>>53449053
Ants and rats are quite social.
But yes, neither benevolence nor intelligence is required for evolutionary success.

Yet why must we erase behaviors derived from our own success or reject them as a base for moral systems we came up with? So far, only >>53448916-anon provided a reason.

>>53449109
>Such as?
What.

WHAT.

I'm being trolled. I'm being fucking trolled. No-one is this fucking stupid.

I- I can't help it. I must keep digging. I need to know how deep this stupidity goes.

So, butterflies, cats, spiders, sharks, many different species of wasp, lots of different species of beetle, all centipedes and millipedes, maybe slugs and snails, flies, pike, starfish, maybe jellyfish, octopi, all scorpions...

Many, many, many animals have survived, survive currently, and will continue to survive, as asocial loners. Fuck you, you know nothing about evolution.

>>53449286
>But yes, neither benevolence nor intelligence is required for evolutionary success.
Intelligence and benevolence are required to get the most evolutionary success through, since those are valuable traits that increases a species survival chance.