Alignment changes in Hell

[Eldric]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>So we're supposed to ignore the whole issue of actions, while focusing solely on intent? By the above criterion, Hitler and Stalin were saintly individuals, since they both believed they were doing what was best for humanity.</STRONG>

You are assuming in the above that the moral compasses of Hitler and Stalin should be considered above and beyond a set of concrete external criterion for good intent that everyone has access to. This is an oversimplification of the issue; intent and action are intimately related; they are indivisible. You cannot ignore this. There is always a thought behind a person's action; this principle is demonstrable by observation of dead people. And this explains why overly evil characters are very visible; their actions are on them like a cattle brand; for instance, the wholesale slaughter of unbelievable numbers of innocents.

Examination of intent DOES yield valuable information. Since intent and action are indivisible, evil or selfish acts are often easy to spot. As to the question of the nature of the intent/action, either it conforms to an accepted external standard for good or it does not; it's as simple as that. As for the action itself, if it is of good intent (according to standards), either it is correct or it is a mistake; if it is a mistake, it just means that a good character made a mistake. Not really a tough problem.

If there's no advantage either for good or evil in the intent or action, it's possible that good/evil standards are indifferent with regard to either, rendering the intent/action neutral.

The end true qalification of an intent/action's good or evil nature should always be from an objective concrete set of external standards, which truly good characters should measure themselves by continually. Selfish measurement practices are not known for their reliability, as history has demonstrated continually. You could substitute "subjective" for "selfish" in the preceding statement and be just as correct.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I would suggest "good" isn't a matter simply of intent, since for anything to be good or evil implies a choice of actions--activity is required; and activity is as complex as intent is easy to define.</STRONG>

You are correct; it is not simply a matter of intent, it is also action; and when that action occurs, it also must be judged against an *objective* set of accepted good standards removed from recent local emotive content. The family might consider you to be wrong, but that doesnt mean they are right; everybody can't be right.

[fable]

Eldric writes:
You are assuming in the above that the moral compasses of Hitler and Stalin should be considered above and beyond a set of concrete external criterion for good intent that everyone has access to.

By no means, Eldric. I agree with the above, but you're preaching (in effect) to the converted. My remarks were a response to Clark's

In my mind, a truly evil person is someone who does not WANT to do anything that may be construed as good. If a person still has the desire to do good, however small that desire may be, then he/she is not a TRULY evil person.

...and as such, my comments should be considered in context. Hitler and Stalin were deliberately chosen as extreme examples to disprove an axiom that equates intent with moral compass. Nothing more, and nothing less than that.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Mr. Clark]

Boy.....I didn't mean for a Theological and Sociological discussion to start. I just wanted to know if your alignment could be changed to good during the "tests" in Hell.

However, I did learn that some of my opinions about good and evil where weak at best....stupid at worst. Thanks you guys for setting me straight.

[Eldric]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>...and as such, my comments should be considered in context. Hitler and Stalin were deliberately chosen as extreme examples to disprove an axiom that equates intent with moral compass. Nothing more, and nothing less than that.
</STRONG>

I guess what I saw in Clark's messages was the principle that you COULD determine good or evil from a person's intent; however, and this is a big however, the intent should be qualified on the basis that the intent be measured against an objective set of criterion for good. I'm supposing that that is the part of the puzzle you did not see in his statements, and therefore pointed out; whereas, I assumed he was already advancing from that point of view; which perhaps he was not.

Is this a correct assessment?

[fable]

Before we go further, let's define our terms.

Define good. Define evil.

[Masteraleph]

One other reason- Good/Neutral/Evil is like True, and False. True (Good) is only true...that is, if there's anything false about it (evil), then it's false. Conversely, if there's something that has some truth (goodness) to it, but is false (evil), then it's false(evil).
Neutral kind of falls out of this example, so we'll call it kind of true. Or maybe a part of the truth. Kind of like a lot of politicians' statements...they're not lies, but aren't the whole truth either.
(Note that this whole thing doesn't necessarily work for the complex examples presented in the replies...I'm just going back to the question).
So, in Hell, if you're Good, and do anything evil, you're evil (true + false= false-> Good + Evil=Evil). Same thing if you're Neutral and do something evil (Part of the Truth+False=False). However, adding good to evil (false+true=false) is still evil. And adding truth to kind of truth still isn't 100% truth.
Again, back to Darth Vader. Evil+Good=Evil...saving Luke doesn't make him a hero. It also doesn't make him a neutral force. He's still a mass murderer.
On the other hand, Luke turning to the dark side (just 1 actoion) would be Good+Evil=Evil.
Obviously, in these cases, Han or Lando would be Neutral. The difference is, they're only Neutral for a little while. If your character is neutral through the whole game, it's very unlikely that 1 personal choice would make them good.

[Eldric]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Before we go further, let's define our terms.

Define good. Define evil. </STRONG>

Ahh, yes... As I expected. I knew it would come to this, but you moved faster than I anticipated; you did not accept my generous offer, as I thought you might.

Nevertheless, suffice it to say that when I was much younger, in my pre-teens, even, I was nothing less than obsessed with the concepts of good and evil. Why? Well, I had a great deal of dissatisfaction with the concepts thereof, since they fell far short of encompassing the realities of everyday behavior and interpersonal events. Thus, I embarked on a campaign to find some answers for myself; fortunately before some adult was able to inform me that either I was inadequate for the quest, or that my quest was in vain.

On my own I slowly built a logical 'house of cards', you might call it, to support an entirely different conceptual of good and evil. Key to this construct was the study of Chaos science. As I applied theorem to real world events, slowly the 'house of cards' became more concrete; until finally it acid tested positive in any case I could think of to present.

I would be more than enthusiastic to engage you in this discussion, if it were not for the fact that I have been preparing a formal presentation of it, and I feel somewhat insecure presenting this on a public BBS system. It is possible, however, that we could engage together in other adjunct topics within the Theology 101 thread.

[fable]

@Eldric, I agree: the best place for this would be down in the depths of SYMsville. Rather than hook it onto Theology 101, try starting up a new thread, and I'll glady join in. You may also want to mark it with a request for no spamming; otherwise, it will soon become the home of everything from discussions about movies to nesting pigeons.