Poll: Good or Evil?
- Thread starter Easykill
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cough. And now back to our regular programming.
The greater good seems obvious. It's good for me, it's good for them. You can dispute how others have used the term 'the greater good' for evil in the past, but this isn't everybody; it's just me.
What sacrifices would I make? Time, effort, and resources. I could put my time and effort into gaining copious amounts of money, but I think it's better to have a hope for a utopia. Even if it never comes, trying is still a beautiful thing.
What sacrifices would others make? A few people would lose money and power.
I'm not a communist, but I think it's unfair to live in the capitalist situation we're in now where people don't have equal opportunity. If you're born into Darfur with AIDS and your parents are murdered, you don't exactly have the ability to make it big on Wall Street. I don't think everyone should have equal amounts of wealth though, because if everyone can, and only one person does, they deserve it.
When it comes to power, I believe in real democracy. I think everyone should be informed, and everyone should have the opportunity to make decisions. Right now I am being taxed without representation (too young to vote) and I don't feel informed about what the government I didn't elect is doing with my money, nevermind feeling like I can't make any difference without changing the whole system. And I'm lucky. I live in what is consistently named the third (or so) best place to live in on Earth.
I'm not sure if I'm going off topic or not, so I'll talk about the 'Fable' thing. I haven't played it, I've only watched a friend play it. She killed people and stole their houses, beat her wife, and kicked chickens. I don't think I'd do that.
Oh and in response to Kate's claim that nobody cares about what's said, that is simply not the case. I enjoy reading all these posts.
The greater good seems obvious. It's good for me, it's good for them. You can dispute how others have used the term 'the greater good' for evil in the past, but this isn't everybody; it's just me.
What sacrifices would I make? Time, effort, and resources. I could put my time and effort into gaining copious amounts of money, but I think it's better to have a hope for a utopia. Even if it never comes, trying is still a beautiful thing.
What sacrifices would others make? A few people would lose money and power.
I'm not a communist, but I think it's unfair to live in the capitalist situation we're in now where people don't have equal opportunity. If you're born into Darfur with AIDS and your parents are murdered, you don't exactly have the ability to make it big on Wall Street. I don't think everyone should have equal amounts of wealth though, because if everyone can, and only one person does, they deserve it.
When it comes to power, I believe in real democracy. I think everyone should be informed, and everyone should have the opportunity to make decisions. Right now I am being taxed without representation (too young to vote) and I don't feel informed about what the government I didn't elect is doing with my money, nevermind feeling like I can't make any difference without changing the whole system. And I'm lucky. I live in what is consistently named the third (or so) best place to live in on Earth.
I'm not sure if I'm going off topic or not, so I'll talk about the 'Fable' thing. I haven't played it, I've only watched a friend play it. She killed people and stole their houses, beat her wife, and kicked chickens. I don't think I'd do that.
Oh and in response to Kate's claim that nobody cares about what's said, that is simply not the case. I enjoy reading all these posts.
Heh. It's not as if I don't know that people do things that help others. I just want people to stop claiming that it's selfless. The person who makes the sacrifice is never completely selfless. I mean, if you help somebody, do you feel good about yourself afterwards? That's a nice feeling, isn't it? Hey, here's another person who needs help! Ah, I can almost taste the improved self-esteem already...
About Fable... In a game, there's less people looking over your shoulder and saying "Stop that! Stop murdering him!" You pretty much have more freedom in a game, and your character is generally strong enough to survive all of the retaliation from NPCs. If in Fable, you played as a normal person and not a Hero, if your character did not have the potential to become a combat monster and didn't know magic, and if there was more in the way of retribution for your acts, you'd be a lot more cautious with him.
That's pretty much how it is in life. You do what you can get away with. When the only real outcome of your actions is different loot and alternate scripted NPC reactions, what incentive do you have *not* to do what gets you the best rewards, other than a decision to role-play a certain alignment? It's not as if it matters, does it? After all, it's only a game... You could always just play through again and stay Good.
Sure, you might find the idea of stealing abhorrent now, but what if there were no real repercussions? If all you had to do after killing a few people was wait a minute or two for that single Wanted star to disappear? If you could get double the Experience Points, more money and better loot from a quest, if only you would sell one of your NPC companions into slavery? I mean, it's not as if you *used* that one. It's not as if you *needed* them to complete the game.
When it all comes down to it, people obey the law because they don't want to face the consequences. That's pretty much all it is. You might consider yourself a good person, but if you could get away with something and there wouldn't be any real consequences, chances are you'd do it. Walking into someone's house and opening the chest in the corner, taking all their worldly possessions and valuables just so you can heal yourself by 50 HP the next time you were low on health? That's theft. Then again, it's the owner's fault. Those fantasy types are so trusting, always leaving their doors unlocked. I mean, anybody could walk in!
Slaughtering your way through the wilderness, slaying bears and wolves left and right? That's genocide. But hey, they're only random encounters! Who's keeping track, eh? After all, you need the Experience from their corpses in order to increase your Level high enough to stop the bad guy from destroying the planet, don't you? If you don't stop him, he'll destroy the planet and all of the humans and animals along... with... it. Ah. Oops. You'd save him the bother, though, if it meant you could reach Level 100, though, wouldn't you?
Sure, people like Jack Thompson and that Mass Erect guy whose name escapes me at the moment see the actions that players engage in as proof that they're going to act that way in the real world. They've got the wrong end of the stick entirely. It's not that players *are* going to act that way in real life. No, it's that they are *not* going to act that way in real life, as it's much, much safer to do it in a computer game.
Everybody's capable of it. Everybody would do it if there were no repercussions. It's just who we are. The Law makes it illegal in real life, but anything goes in gaming. I suppose that's one of the reasons why people meta-game RPGs, isn't it?
"What can I do to get the greatest rewards?"
"What problems will I face along the way?"
"If I do this evil act now, can I still earn enough Light Side Points to give me back my Light Side Mastery?"
"Okay, doing this gets me a discount on all of the stores in the game. However, none of the stores will ever have anything useful. Doing this, however, gets me money, more Experience and better loot. Which action do I take? Man, this is a difficult decision."
It's all about what you get in return, from the 'altruist' who wants to be seen as a good person for their deeds to the meta-gamer admiring the new armour he acquired through betrayal.
About Fable... In a game, there's less people looking over your shoulder and saying "Stop that! Stop murdering him!" You pretty much have more freedom in a game, and your character is generally strong enough to survive all of the retaliation from NPCs. If in Fable, you played as a normal person and not a Hero, if your character did not have the potential to become a combat monster and didn't know magic, and if there was more in the way of retribution for your acts, you'd be a lot more cautious with him.
That's pretty much how it is in life. You do what you can get away with. When the only real outcome of your actions is different loot and alternate scripted NPC reactions, what incentive do you have *not* to do what gets you the best rewards, other than a decision to role-play a certain alignment? It's not as if it matters, does it? After all, it's only a game... You could always just play through again and stay Good.
Sure, you might find the idea of stealing abhorrent now, but what if there were no real repercussions? If all you had to do after killing a few people was wait a minute or two for that single Wanted star to disappear? If you could get double the Experience Points, more money and better loot from a quest, if only you would sell one of your NPC companions into slavery? I mean, it's not as if you *used* that one. It's not as if you *needed* them to complete the game.
When it all comes down to it, people obey the law because they don't want to face the consequences. That's pretty much all it is. You might consider yourself a good person, but if you could get away with something and there wouldn't be any real consequences, chances are you'd do it. Walking into someone's house and opening the chest in the corner, taking all their worldly possessions and valuables just so you can heal yourself by 50 HP the next time you were low on health? That's theft. Then again, it's the owner's fault. Those fantasy types are so trusting, always leaving their doors unlocked. I mean, anybody could walk in!
Slaughtering your way through the wilderness, slaying bears and wolves left and right? That's genocide. But hey, they're only random encounters! Who's keeping track, eh? After all, you need the Experience from their corpses in order to increase your Level high enough to stop the bad guy from destroying the planet, don't you? If you don't stop him, he'll destroy the planet and all of the humans and animals along... with... it. Ah. Oops. You'd save him the bother, though, if it meant you could reach Level 100, though, wouldn't you?
Sure, people like Jack Thompson and that Mass Erect guy whose name escapes me at the moment see the actions that players engage in as proof that they're going to act that way in the real world. They've got the wrong end of the stick entirely. It's not that players *are* going to act that way in real life. No, it's that they are *not* going to act that way in real life, as it's much, much safer to do it in a computer game.
Everybody's capable of it. Everybody would do it if there were no repercussions. It's just who we are. The Law makes it illegal in real life, but anything goes in gaming. I suppose that's one of the reasons why people meta-game RPGs, isn't it?
"What can I do to get the greatest rewards?"
"What problems will I face along the way?"
"If I do this evil act now, can I still earn enough Light Side Points to give me back my Light Side Mastery?"
"Okay, doing this gets me a discount on all of the stores in the game. However, none of the stores will ever have anything useful. Doing this, however, gets me money, more Experience and better loot. Which action do I take? Man, this is a difficult decision."
It's all about what you get in return, from the 'altruist' who wants to be seen as a good person for their deeds to the meta-gamer admiring the new armour he acquired through betrayal.
This is an interesting thread, but like I said earlier you don't know what you will do intill you do it as far as "who will you save questions" go.
You can't describe yourself through words on a forum. Only your actions show who you are.
If you were told that you could kill half the world to save the other half and then told that you could part that job onto someone else of your choosing. you would think that saving half the world would be a good thing but maybe it isn't. How many families would be broken, how many people would lose their money and become poor beggars, would you, your family and friends be part that died. Imagine waking up and find that half of everyone was gone. Could you be responsible for that? Would you hand it on to someone else and give them that problem. Or would you rather that no one survived so that the other half don't need to suffer.
I think that this is an interesting question. i was asked it awhile ago and still can't think of an answer for it.
Who is that Kate guy and what was his game? I'm not good following Internet flame wars so can someone please explain.
You can't describe yourself through words on a forum. Only your actions show who you are.
If you were told that you could kill half the world to save the other half and then told that you could part that job onto someone else of your choosing. you would think that saving half the world would be a good thing but maybe it isn't. How many families would be broken, how many people would lose their money and become poor beggars, would you, your family and friends be part that died. Imagine waking up and find that half of everyone was gone. Could you be responsible for that? Would you hand it on to someone else and give them that problem. Or would you rather that no one survived so that the other half don't need to suffer.
I think that this is an interesting question. i was asked it awhile ago and still can't think of an answer for it.
Who is that Kate guy and what was his game? I'm not good following Internet flame wars so can someone please explain.
I'd take out half the world, who knows? I might get lucky and take out the 'bad' half. Anyways, the way I see the choice is:
a) Kill half the world, avert 'total' disaster, and more or less survive.
b) Let the world perish
c) Hand it off to someone else and risk being in the dead half.
Logically, the best one for me would be "A" I survive and so does half of everyone else. Better than dying in "B" or gambling with my life in "C".
a) Kill half the world, avert 'total' disaster, and more or less survive.
b) Let the world perish
c) Hand it off to someone else and risk being in the dead half.
Logically, the best one for me would be "A" I survive and so does half of everyone else. Better than dying in "B" or gambling with my life in "C".
I never said that you would get to chose who lives and who dies and I never said you get too live. You might end up killing yourself.John Galt said:
personaly i could do it. I couldn't live with myself knowing that I hit the switch or pull the plug or whatever.
I could do it. What you said about families is probably wrong because it'll probably be in a certain geographic region, killing everyone there. Also, when it comes down to it, losing half our population would actually be a good thing for the species. All it is, is a switch. I could do that. I'd feel guilty the rest of my natural life, but I could do that.
If I could know that there was no chance of any survivors, I'd actually go for option B. If the only possible outcomes involved a lot of people dying, I'd rather no-one had to go through the grief of losing a loved one. It's not like life means anything, so nothing's getting lost if humans become extinct.Fire Daemon said:
I might agree, but something that can wipe us out will damage Earth too. Our planet has value greater than our species. it is the only place we've seen capable of creating life advanced enough to be sentient. In my opinion, the universe is pointless unless there is someone to observe it and try to make sense of it. I don't care about life that relies almost entirely on instinct and doesn't want to know why stuff happens. If we die something else will just pick up where we left off by finding ruins and preserved books and stuff. I'm concerned about the planet.Break said:
Sorry if that made no sense, I'm tired.
I agree with you on the "universe is pointless" bit, but I can't say I see the significance of life. What difference does it make if some atoms get together and notice that the sky is blue? I mean, sure, since we're here, we may as well make the most of it, but that just gives us something to do. We still live short, futile lives, fighting for the good of a meaningless future, in a pointless universe.
I went for Dunno 'cos i dunno. But I guess the "for the greater good" thing goes out of the window when you realise you can become invisible and twang women's bra straps at will. Just think about that. At will.
What do you know, it's the illegitemate child of MGG=Reviews and Hitler. Y'know, this is the kind of place where people have something called intelligent discussion. But then again, you're right. People should just copulate and drink beer and then call themself a success, right? That's the way to live? Heaven forbid anyone sets out to accomplish something meaningful in life.kate----x said:
"so yea people.. omg i bet u lot have regular sex.. u eva had a one night stand?"
Oh, of course. You must have lots of sex with lots of worthless losers. How're the crabs treatin' ya?
Do the world a favour. Don't have sex. The world is polluted enough with your illegitemate retard offspring.
Yeah, but unfortunately there was no option of simply giving them a few smacks upside the head and calling it a day. The conversation went a little something like this:Dectilon said:
Drunk: Yo momma's fat!
Captain Kickass: Have at thee, cur!
Ok not really quite like that, but I think I got the point across.
A cynical view, but a reasonable one, backed up by the arseloads of people that engage in that oh-so-touchy subject known as illegal downloading.Blayze said:
So true. I remember many situations where I'd refuse to accept a reward for someone in KOTOR. I'd choose the dialogue option of "No reward is necessary. I'm just here to help," When what I really meant to say was "GIMME MY LIGHTSIDE POINTS *****"John Galt said:
if the world is willing to kill so much as one inocent so the rest of us can live in peace then balls to that, let this entire forsaken race suffer, with that kind of mentality they don't deserve peace and prosperity. Anyway this whole arguement reminds me of W.E.B. Du Boise vs. Booker T. Washington one beleived Blacks should demand equality now, while Booker speaking from personally experience said they should all get jobs and work their way up the ladder like him so that black and white societies would naturally blend, everyone sided with Du Boise, but personally I think Booker was right and still stand by if we all pull our share and encourage those around us to do the same then that is really the ultimate good, these conversations are fun, but really, fat guys, cliffs and railroads mean very little in the long run
Of course humanity matters! Our lives need not be futile and the future is not meaningless! I have a hard time grasping how anything can matter to you if the entire universe does not. I'm probably alone here as being a theist, so chances are you don't view the world the same way I do, but everything is beautiful and there are moments when I am free of my ego and can truly love everything. It's an overwhelming bliss.Break said:
The statement people are saying about how people only do good because it makes them feel good seems obvious. Doesn't make doing good any less awesome though. I have a theory that happiness is drawn from four sources: the physical, love, virtuosity, and feeling free. Doing good for others falls into almost all of them, depending on what the act is. What do you think?
Oh, and before anyone does any bible bashing, I haven't discovered any religions yet that align with my views, so don't bother.