Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sebcool]

LordBucket, why are you always either so opposed to
violence or so calmly suggesting that we proceed with the killing?

Your worldview and mine are so dissimilar that it's difficult for you to see the logical consistency behind my thinking. Our facts are different, so we naturally come to different conclusions.

Being a Hero is not about fighting while you think that violence is good and becoming pacifistic when you realise that is is
bad. It is about making hard choices. We did not make any before, so let us begin our redemption by making one now.

Spoiler: stuff (click to show/hide)

1) I have no illusions about us being a hero. We've chosen to stay here and perpetuate the system that we're unhappy about. That doesn't make us a hero. It makes us foolish.

2) I don't think that violence is "good." I think that it is effective when properly applied. For example, if we know that Bob is likely to create problems for us, and if we kill Bob, we can be relatively assured that Bob will not create problems for us. It's really very simple.

3) "Pacifism" was not my motivation is suggesting we walk away. The motivation was to not perpetuate the system. To not continue to do the thing we were unhappy about. To not be one of the people we disagree with. To simply choose to not participate in the thing. If 1000 people in a village to the east and 1000 people in the village to the west are all fighting each other...you don't solve that problem by starting a new village in the north and attacking them both. There's a rather amusing anecdote about a software programmer that comes to mind. He sees that there are a dozen different text editors, and it frustrates him that nobody can agree on single standard editor and that he has to learn 12 different editors. So his solution is to make another one. Until somebody slaps him and says they don't want to have to learn 13.

The method that you're using to solve your problem is not going to solve the problem. It's simply going to perpetuate it.

4) Sure we've made hard choices. We chose to make a personal appearance in the hospital knowing there was a heroic hero present. And we chose to kill the girl in the hospital knowing that it might alienate Cerulean. From my point of view, you are the one trying to take the easy path: you're trying to appease your conscience, but you refuse to walk away from the situation, and now you're refusing to accept the consequences of your decision to fight by refusing to follow through on Knighthowl. You're just going to let him go. And he's just going to leave, rally forces, get stronger and come back.

5) My motivation has nothing to do with redemption. I feel no guilt about how we've played the game so far.

6) I simply suggest that if we're going to choose this path...then walk the path we've chosen. Let's not waste our time deluding ourselves. If we're seriously going to take on an entire society of people who are completely eager and willing to kill and torture us to maintain the status quo...and we're going to try to force a change of the status quo...we're not going to get very far if we refuse to use force. What are you going to do? Are you going to turn down all destruction missions? Are you going to let everyone get away to get stronger and attack us again?

I suggested that we walk away. You wanted to fight them, so fight them. Don't stay to fight them but refuse to fight. Make up your mind.

We do not murder people, but there is nothing wrong with helping them see the truth.

What are you talking about? Of course we do. We've killed lots of people when it accomplishes our goals. Why are you suddenly hesitant now? You were the one who wanted to stay and fight these people.

The reason we should help him is because we have Standards. We shouldn't just kill everyone in our way, regardless of how honourable or innocent they are, that would just be lowering ourselves to what the heroes do. I say we help him, he was a worthy opponent and he deserves a worthy end, not this slaughter.

And no, I am not saying that we should be pacifistic or anything, I'm saying that we should do what we had set ourselves to do at the very beginning. We should still be evil, but we should still have standards.

[10ebbor10]

You do need to make up your minds about which standards you use though. They have a tendency to vary wildly.

On a side note: I'm for helping, plot exposition and probably mutagen. No way we're going to let him go.

[sebcool]

You do need to make up your minds about which standards you use though. They have a tendency to vary wildly.

On a side note: I'm for helping, plot exposition and probably mutagen. No way we're going to let him go.

Our standards were already set before, we will fight the forces of good, but we should never lower ourselves to their level. We should not kill people for the crime of existing, and we should recognize a worthy opponent and fight him with honour.

Also, we shouldn't just release him. Help him and try to convince him to join our side like a true Worthy Opponent.

[10ebbor10]

We murdered an entire city block as a distraction. And we killed a little girl. Both because we didn't want to take on the good guys.

[sebcool]

We murdered an entire city block as a distraction. And we killed a little girl. Both because we didn't want to take on the good guys.

Well, I'm not saying that's within our standards. We were jaded by the widespread evil of the heroes and really pissed off, and we were still on shaky moral grounds considering we didn't even know who we were. Now that we have been revealed as The Hero, and regained our trust to our old standards, we should demonstrate our new-found morality by sparing him.

[LordBucket]

We should not kill people for the crime of existing

Nobody's suggesting we kill him for the crime of existing. Killing him generates a simple, direct and beneficial result: he is removed s an adversary. Also, I saw somebody suggest that it might mean we don't have to move to a new location, though I'm skeptical of that. He'd have to be an idiot to have not reported our location once he arrived.

It's possible we have 100 heroes en route to our lair right now.

we should demonstrate our new-found morality by sparing him.

Spare the guy who can hurt us, but kill, kidnap, and force-inject nameless civilians?

Because that's what's going to happen. Kidnapping and injecting people is our primary recruiting method.

Or are you going to give that up too?

[Knit tie]

LordBucket, but what if you want the villages to stop fighting? I believe that is the fundamental difference in our worldviews. Simply refusing to participate in the killing is the absolute best choice for our newfound morality, but what about the world? And, as you said, if we act as heroes, we will become as ruthless as they are, and no changes will occur.

When I supported the killings I have been trying to act in-character for Incognito, who was amnesiac, afraid of the Hero when we killed the girl in the hospital, furious when his daughter was kidnapped, and generally unsure of what he is.

I myself agree with you on that, in real life, it is often the best choice to simply walk away. But in a game, where our character really does have the power to change the world for the better, I consider refusing to do so very selfish. We are a former hero, after all, known for stupidly rising against powerful empires in order to free a gang of slaves and not making logically sound decisions simply because they believe it is not right.
I accept that our worldviews are different and that we have a different approach to our character. I do not wish to argue further and if I have in any way insulted you, I apologise.

As for our standards, they did not change, we just weren't really respecting them before. I suggest we use Chemista's revelation as a turning point and start adhering to them. Which means no more of this:

We murdered an entire city block as a distraction. And we killed a little girl. Both because we didn't want to take on the good guys.

[10ebbor10]

LordBucket, but what if you want the villages to stop fighting?

The simplest solution is to turn one of the villages into the other.

[sebcool]

LordBucket, but what if you want the villages to stop fighting?

Nevertheless, your arguements were excellent and if our argument has in any way insulted you, I apologise.

As for our standards, they did not change, we just weren't really respecting them before. I suggest we use Chemista's revelation as a turning point and start adhering to them. Which means no more of this:

We murdered an entire city block as a distraction. And we killed a little girl. Both because we didn't want to take on the good guys.

Exactly.

We should not kill people for the crime of existing

Nobody's suggesting we kill him for the crime of existing. Killing him generates a simple, direct and beneficial result: he is removed s an adversary. Also, I saw somebody suggest that it might mean we don't have to move to a new location, though I'm skeptical of that. He'd have to be an idiot to have not reported our location once he arrived.

It's possible we have 100 heroes en route to our lair right now.

we should demonstrate our new-found morality by sparing him.

Spare the guy who can hurt us, but kill, kidnap, and force-inject nameless civilians?

Because that's what's going to happen. Kidnapping and injecting people is our primary recruiting method.

Or are you going to give that up too?

First of all, I know you want us to kill him because he's a threat to us, but this is the only actually honourable hero we have met, and I don't want us to waste this opportunity to gain an ally.

And regarding the civilians, killing them is not the way we did it to start with. Sure, we turned them into monsters and all that, but they were already corrupted by our succubi, and those we captured were enemies trying to kill us. And turning them into monsters arguably improved their life.

But I say that we should probably abandon our 'monsters only' rule. Otherwise we will just turn into another oppressive regime, except this time it's the monsters who rule. We are, after all, also human.

[LordBucket]

LordBucket, but what if you want the villages to stop fighting?

It's not up to you whether they stop fighting. It's up to them whether they stop fighting. You can't decide what other people do. You can only decide what you do.

your arguements were excellent and if our argument has in any way insulted you, I apologise.

Thank you. And no, not offended.

As for our standards, they did not change, we just weren't really respecting them before.

No, some of us have been completely consistent. It's just that not every player in the thread agree on what the standards are. Here's what I had to say about it 30 pages ago:

Personally, my view is that we don't value senseless violence, and we're not emotionally stunted idiots. We're simply persuing our personal agenda, and crushing those who stand in our way. We neither enjoy nor suffer over the crushing. There is no value in senseless violence. It's simply a waste of energy. Hugging bunnies is perfectly ok, if we like to do that. Genociding populations is perfectly ok, provided it is an efficient way of accomplishing our goals.

It's never a question of whether something is "too evil" for us to consider. It's simply a question of whether it effectively accomplishes our goals. But love and cuddles are legitimate goals, right alongside planetary conquest.

It's not that we don't kick puppies because only monsters kick puppies...we don't kick puppies because either there's nothing in it for us, or because we like puppies. And if we like puppies, then perhaps we might consider releasing a poisonous gas to kill all humans within a thousand miles in order to build a gigantic puppy farm, then bring in slave labor from outside to come in and pet the puppies and give them attention. Or, maybe our goal is to exterminate all puppies. In which case kicking them is simply an inefficient waste of time and energy when we could instead be genetically engineering puppies to explode at age two, and then releasing them into the breeding population.

So either way, we don't kick puppies.

Gamington's killing spree and killing the girl in the hospital were both effective means to accomplish our goals. We took no particular pleasure in the acts, but neither did we shirk away from them.

[sebcool]

LordBucket, but what if you want the villages to stop fighting?

It's not up to you whether they stop fighting. It's up to them whether they stop fighting. You can't decide what other people do. You can only decide what you do.

your arguements were excellent and if our argument has in any way insulted you, I apologise.

Thank you. And no, not offended.

As for our standards, they did not change, we just weren't really respecting them before.

No, some of us have been completely consistent. It's just that not every player in the thread agree on what the standards are. Here's what I had to say about it 30 pages ago:

Personally, my view is that we don't value senseless violence, and we're not emotionally stunted idiots. We're simply persuing our personal agenda, and crushing those who stand in our way. We neither enjoy nor suffer over the crushing. There is no value in senseless violence. It's simply a waste of energy. Hugging bunnies is perfectly ok, if we like to do that. Genociding populations is perfectly ok, provided it is an efficient way of accomplishing our goals.

It's never a question of whether something is "too evil" for us to consider. It's simply a question of whether it effectively accomplishes our goals. But love and cuddles are legitimate goals, right alongside planetary conquest.

It's not that we don't kick puppies because only monsters kick puppies...we don't kick puppies because either there's nothing in it for us, or because we like puppies. And if we like puppies, then perhaps we might consider releasing a poisonous gas to kill all humans within a thousand miles in order to build a gigantic puppy farm, then bring in slave labor from outside to come in and pet the puppies and give them attention. Or, maybe our goal is to exterminate all puppies. In which case kicking them is simply an inefficient waste of time and energy when we could instead be genetically engineering puppies to explode at age two, and then releasing them into the breeding population.

So either way, we don't kick puppies.

Gamington's killing spree and killing the girl in the hospital were both effective means to accomplish our goals. We took no particular pleasure in the acts, but neither did we shirk away from them.

While those standards certainly made sense at the time, and we probably would have had way more trouble if we didn't do those things, I still say we should rethink our standards. While they worked at the time, they also brought us into this mess to begin with.

And really, if we continue like this, we will eventually become just like them. We will slowly make more and more excuses for our actions, until the only thing separating us from them is the name. We should have more rigid standards, so that we won't ever sink to their level again.

[LordBucket]

And what exactly do you propose?

[Knit tie]

And what exactly do you propose?

I myself propose fighting them, but not lowering ourselves to their level. It will be hard, emotionally devastating and probably disastrous, but this is what I believe former Silver would do.

As for our standards, they did not change, we just weren't really respecting them before.

No, some of us have been completely consistent. It's just that not every player in the thread agree on what the standards are. Here's what I had to say about it 30 pages ago:

Personally, my view is that we don't value senseless violence, and we're not emotionally stunted idiots. We're simply persuing our personal agenda, and crushing those who stand in our way. We neither enjoy nor suffer over the crushing. There is no value in senseless violence. It's simply a waste of energy. Hugging bunnies is perfectly ok, if we like to do that. Genociding populations is perfectly ok, provided it is an efficient way of accomplishing our goals.

It's never a question of whether something is "too evil" for us to consider. It's simply a question of whether it effectively accomplishes our goals. But love and cuddles are legitimate goals, right alongside planetary conquest.

It's not that we don't kick puppies because only monsters kick puppies...we don't kick puppies because either there's nothing in it for us, or because we like puppies. And if we like puppies, then perhaps we might consider releasing a poisonous gas to kill all humans within a thousand miles in order to build a gigantic puppy farm, then bring in slave labor from outside to come in and pet the puppies and give them attention. Or, maybe our goal is to exterminate all puppies. In which case kicking them is simply an inefficient waste of time and energy when we could instead be genetically engineering puppies to explode at age two, and then releasing them into the breeding population.

So either way, we don't kick puppies.

Gamington's killing spree and killing the girl in the hospital were both effective means to accomplish our goals. We took no particular pleasure in the acts, but neither did we shirk away from them.

Yes, Lord Bucket, I believe the main problem of Incognito is that he has a bunch of different people telling him what to do.

Your view of him is as quoted. My view of him was "a conflicted yet emotional individual, unsure of what he is and what he should do, and thus susceptible to impulsive actions, even against his moral standing or logical reasonong" before it was revealed that he was a Hero and then I began viewing him as "a man who has realised that violence breeds only violence and suffering, but cannot just retreat and leave the world as it is, who will make illogical decisions due to being a hardheaded hero with a set of morals".

Anyway, I apologise for not realising this sooner.

[LordBucket]

My view of him was "a conflicted yet emotional individual, unsure of what he is and what he should do, and thus susceptible to impulsive actions, even against his moral standing or logical reasonong" before it was revealed that he was a Hero and then I began viewing him as "a man who has realised that violence breeds only violence and suffering, but cannot just retreat and leave the world as it is, who will make illogical decisions due to being a hardheaded hero with a set of morals".

I think the personality you're describing...uncertain what to do, prone to impulsive actions and illogical decisions...probably wouldn't make a very effective overlord.

I myself propose fighting them, but not lowering ourselves to their level. It will be hard, emotionally
devastating and probably disastrous, but this is what I believe former Silver would do.

No, i'm not asking for tactics. You suggested revising our "standards."

What standards do you suggest?

Because I don't see any easy way to fight on if we refuse to do any fighting.

[Cattani]

Help him.
Wait for more fluff afterwards.

I was hoping for very low rolls for us in the fight so Knighthowl could kill us and this story end in a nice, "fitting" way.
Because if we do not die there (which we didn't) we would become like this: shattered in our ways, got a goal we have no means of accomplishing (How in the world can we be a evil overlord without killing people and, you know, being evil? Or say we're not the regular "evil overlord" anymore, say we are "the last sane man in an insane world" that sees the disease in the system, how can we change it if we're not to kill or abuse something? What, are we beating people with a piece of cardboard until they say "Okay, okay, i'm not gonna abuse my position anymore"?
I would seriously think this game should be played not based on true good or true evil, but in the very naive way all evil overlords think: "IM GONNA DESTROY THE WORLD MUHAHAHA! even if afterwards there is no world for me to live in". But then again, nightshade himself said he was hoping for us to come to these conclusions.
Anyway, i think that we had our "disfunctional family" working just right. If we change inside (like we are doing) it will just not work anymore just because we are not the same guy who runned it.
I, for one, think the best part of the story is over. Now we have a lot more things that I can't see how will connect together. So, say they capture Cerulean again. We are no longer moraly able to kill hundreds as a distraction so the only option we have is getting Cerulean killed. Or say we are in a regular mission and the cops arrive. We can't kill them because they have families and what-not, so we can only run away. We became regular street bandits who can no longer change anything.

Anyway, i clap my hands, raise my glass to the awesome story nightshade mastered. I just can not see how can an evil overlord have morals. Standards are one thing, to not kill people without a good reason, to not be cruel, to protect what we hold dear to the end. Now morals, as in caring for our enemies i can not place in a efficient overlord.