Grrl Power #389 – Interview to a kill
There’s been some debate as to whether Deus is actually evil or not, I would suggest giving it a few pages before deciding. In my mind, good and evil can’t be absolutes, they exist on a spectrum. Is killing always an absolute wrong? In a hypothetical situation, killing one person to save two is objectively the better choice. Some people might debate that, to me it’s clear the best path is the one that does the least harm, so taking X lives to save X+1 lives is a no brainer. Of course there are rarely such clear cut choices in real life. What about killing two junkies to save one doctor, four kidnappers to save one scientist, or every televangelist to save one… anyone who isn’t a televangelist?
A Lawful Good Paladin kills a bandit, does that make him evil? What if the bandit only wanted the saddlebag of apples to feed his family? If the Paladin knew the bandit’s intentions and killed him anyway, then probably yes, if not, then no, at least not from the Paladin’s point of view. The son of the bandit might feel differently. Not only are good and evil not absolutes, they are relative values depending on the observer. That’s why bad guys rarely think of themselves as bad guys. Stealing from a bank that shattered the economy and took thousands of people’s homes, and the CEO not only didn’t go to jail, he got a massive bonus? Fairly easy to justify. The cops are working for the government which works for the banks and their job is to maintain the status quo. Are they good or bad in this situation? Robbing the CEO of his bonus would be easier to justify, and possibly more ethical, but does that then shift the value of the cops’ actions?
This is usually how Deus works, by miring people in semantic debates and inching their position ever closer to his, and I should add, with considerably more skill that I can legitimately muster. That’s why it’s difficult to write smart characters. There’s almost no chance the person writing them is smarter the character. An inventor or scientist, sure, throw out some technobabble and then show the thing they invented, but writing a genuinely intelligent character is tough. One of the few really good examples I can think of is Hannibal, or at least the first two seasons. Hannibal approaches situations in that show with forethought and planning that borders on Batman level absurd, but if you were really 65 IQ up on everyone else around you, things that seem like ridiculous foresight to someone else might come as second nature to you. Deus hasn’t really displayed this yet, since doing so either takes a lot of text or a long plot in which characters can reveal their machinations. I think that’s part of the reason why most smart characters come across as intelligent but unwise. They have flashes of brilliance but no long game.
Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Is he evil…. Maybe, is he a villain, more then likely.
Also I think I got the first post.
Maybe, probably, whose to say.
See, Villainy is different from Evil- Evil is selfishness, lack of empathy, and doing ‘bad things’ because it’s what you want to do.
Villainy is, instead, flaunting the Law of the Land in order to succeed at your own aims. At least, that’s my take on it.
Following that logic, The Punisher is most definitely a Villain, but more than that, he’s also very, very close to being Evil- because he not only breaks the law for his goals, but his crusade against criminals is mostly for his own revenge, rather than to protect others; selfish, in other words. If he slaughtered baddies so that ‘no-one else must suffer what I suffered’, he’d be Good- mislead, but good. But his motivation is ‘kill baddies because they hurt me’.
DOOM is neither a Villain (in his own country, at least) or Evil- all he does is to better things for his people (well, it depends on the writer). When he’s over in America blowing up buildings and working out his animosity on RICHARDS!, then he’s both Evil and a Villain- flaunting laws for his own gain.
But you could have someone who’s a Good Villain- this would be, say, early Batman, before he started working with the police, or a lot of the Lovable Rogue characters out there. And you can also easily have an Evil Hero- someone who does good only because it makes them feel good, or to further their own goals- you don’t see many of these out there, because it requires a very peculiar moral code.
Here’s what I think makes the difference between an Evil Hero and an Evil Villain: which of their attributes is stronger – intelligence or ego.
An Evil Hero would be very, very close to an Evil Villain. Both of them would be out doing fantastic deeds in an effort to further their goals of becoming more powerful and influential. The Hero, however, would be well aware of the fact that they are NOT immortal, invincible, and all-powerful, so unlike the Villain, they’d be more inclined to do things that benefit other people on a regular basis, because it means they’re a public asset instead of a public menace.
Nor would that Hero be secretly doing shadowy deeds, either – not if they can help it. Again: intelligence vs. ego. An Evil Villain trying to pass themself off as a Hero might maintain a sparkling public image while torturing puppies and kittens underground or something. The Evil Hero isn’t so conceited as to imagine that their actions would NEVER come to light. It’d always be a risk.
—
Comparing an Evil Hero to a Good Hero: the difference there is intelligence vs. righteousness. The Evil Hero would be the person who shoots Batman in the leg, shoves him to the side, and slits the Joker’s throat over Batman’s protests, calling him an idiot for trying to stick to his code after all the harm it’s done. The Evil Hero would then, of course, be sure to get some medical care for Batman – Batman’s a righteous idiot, not a mass murderer, and doesn’t deserve to die.
The Evil Hero wouldn’t sacrifice themself unless they were already going to die if someone else didn’t do it. And even then it’s a little iffy – if there was a less-important candidate who could do the sacrifice, they’d probably try to make them take the fall. An example there would be – again, using Batman – that they would have some random Joe Schmoe fly a ready-to-blow nuke out over the ocean instead of doing it themself, if at all possible (time wasted trying to convince/coerce someone else, or the possibility that someone else would chicken out of it at the last minute, would affect that decision).
The Evil Hero wouldn’t risk a one-in-a-million chance to prevent unfortunate collateral damage. But at the same time, they wouldn’t be That Asshole General who always shoots down The True Hero’s proposal to try the last-minute, risky operation. They’d refuse to cancel their nuclear strike for it, but they’d be willing to give The True Hero a chance, possibly even to delay the nuclear strike if there was some wiggle room.
The Evil Hero would very definitely threaten, harm, or even kill innocent people if necessary, but only if necessary, and only if other options were not available. And – generally – not in pursuit of selfish goals (see the comparison to the Evil Villain). For example, if a terrorist group captured a building full of thousands, the Evil Hero might drag the leader’s family out in the open, stab the leader’s spouse in the throat to prove their resolve, and then hold the bloody blade up to the eyes of the oldest child. “Your call, bro.” They would NOT do this with glee. In fact, they’d regret the necessity of the action. But they wouldn’t regret the action itself, not if it gave favorable results. (This is only an extreme example. A smart Evil Hero would know better; doing something like that would be way too inciting for anything other than a last resort. It’d probably cause more hostage deaths than a straight-up assault would. But I just wanted to establish where that line was.)
—
So where’s Deus right now, using that whole hypothetical infodump of mine? He’s really skirting the line between Evil Hero and Evil Villain. Wanting to take a poor nation and develop it into a wealthy, healthy one, in a way that will benefit both the population and himself? That’s an intelligent move. Killing the current ruler in front of his son to achieve it after negotiations fail? That’s a very egotistical one.
If this is a fairly isolated incident, and enough backstory against Indinge, then even if it comes to light it won’t do a lot of damage to his public reputation (especially since he’s softening the blow by being charismatic and referring to himself as a megalomaniac in public appearances anyway). It’s more villainous than heroic, but the rest of his actions could still keep him on the Heroic side.
If he does this a lot, and/or progresses up to assassinating less corrupt people? Or even if he doesn’t assassinate anyone else, but uses other harmful means to get what he wants on a regular basis? Then he definitely falls into the Villain category.
But he can’t be pinned down right now because we don’t have enough of his backstory. Or… front-story. >_>
I’d say he’s definitely evil, but evil for a good cause is tolerable enough. We just don’t know if his more heroic actions are sincere or a front he puts up to hide his true nature yet.
Batman is not a righteous idiot. Bruce Wayne is clinically insane. It is why the Batman has always been so believable, and why his origin story has never changed in any important way. We can all see a child, inheritor of wealth and possessing considerable physical and mental potential, becoming morbidly obsessed with crime after seeing his parents killed right in front of him, and his obsession giving him the drive to develop his potentials and his wealth the resources to do so. The fact that he became useful to society does not change the fact that Bruce Wayne is pure bat$#!+ crazy. This, incidentally, seems to be why the Batman and the Joker are each other’s primary opponents; each sees the other as a distorted reflection of himself.
On the “Joker is a distorted batman” comment…
My headcanon (and everything seems to line up with it, at least Dark Knight batman) is that the Joker is a remaining member of the League of Shadows, and the both of them, their “ideological battle” is basically seeing who’s ideology wins, and to the winner goes leadership of the reamining League. (Which also makes Batman forming his “League of Justice” and joker forming his Jokerz shine in a different light… each one recruiting into their replacement league.)
The League of Shadows was not the type to stick to a failed ideology, and they have plants everywhere. To the one who proves their ideology among the high-ranking survivors of the League of Shadows goes the whole network.
This is given further credence by the Joker’s tendency to kill off mafia members, corrupt rich, and criminals (those who actually do threaten the long-term survival of the area) even if it means using the self-same, which seems to fit the League’s Modus Operandi. Further, the League had plants in in Arkham Asylum to release the inmates on an unprepared city. Joker was among the inmates of the Asylum and apparantly knows enough secrets about the place to break out whenever he wants (which a League plant would have had the knowledge to do.) He also knows that Batman is unstable, which is why he constantly reminds Batman of Batman’s values: to remind them of why they’re fighting so he doesn’t let his hot-headed nature ruin the contest and the bigger picture. Further, this idea is backed up by Batman’s constant focus on making sure Joker survives despite getting captured, and the Joker not killing Batman, and the fact that neither one really cares about the other’s “secret identity”… they both already know who eachother are from the League. Further, they both have a motif built out of a common fear (part of the League’s training) and taking it to extreme with their symbology… Batman’s fear being bats, and the Joker’s fear being clowns. (They were both doing the “fear motif” thing before they started fighting, the rest of the villains are just copycatting the two of them.) There’s other things, but I think that’s enough to make the point.
Going with an earlier thread awhile back on this matter.
The earliest origin of the Joker, is he was a failing comic who was trying to support a pregnant wife.
To make some quick cash he became the face of the red hood gang.
In a fight with bats he fell into a vat of chemicals which made him look as he now does.
He escaped and found out that his wife died while giving birth (no word on the child).
That sent him over the edge.
Now for a theory.
With all the retcons which pass unnoticed by the hero’s and npc ‘s .
I believe that the Joker is at least somewhat aware of it and in his own twisted way trying to go
“home” when the next one comes.
To back this up when Hal Jordan was the Specter for a little bit he was going to destroy humanity because it was irdeamable in his opinion.
Martian Manhunter showed him in the deepest recesses of Jokers mind that he wanted to be an ordinary man with a loving wife.
“Batman is not a righteous idiot.”
I expect the Evil Hero would disagree with that. The argument for “clinically insane” has some sound points to it, except that Bruce Wayne is otherwise a generally functional member of society. Deeply disturbed to be sure, but clinically insane?
“The argument for “clinically insane” has some sound points to it, except that Bruce Wayne is otherwise a generally functional member of society.”
Is he?
Under his watch, the schools are no better, nor are social services, government nor infrastructure that doesn’t directly benefit his “crimefighting.” Criminals and the criminally insane are arrested and imprisoned or committed, but are back on the streets, either through miscarriage of justice or through the never-improving security of Blackgate or Arkham. Given his wealth and, arguably, his position of potential power, you’ld think he could have fixed something, possibly just making Blackgate and Arkham relatively escape-proof. Instead, he occasionally tosses money at a charity or a clinic or something that ultimately can’t make a real difference.
No, Bruce Wayne/Batman has used his power and wealth to turn Gotham City into a playground for a damaged little boy who wants to hurt someone, both individually (the villains) and collectively (the City itself), for taking his parents away and to be hurt himself, for allowing them to be taken away. He doesn’t kill his opponents, not for moral reasons (though he tells himself otherwise), but so that they will have yet another chance to punish him as he once again revenges himself on them. He doesn’t fix the City, because, to paraphrase Owlman in JLA: Earth 2 there would be “no one left to hurt” if he did.
Imagine how many lives he would have saved, just since the last retcon, If. He. Had. Just. Put. The. Joker. Down.
–Disclaimer: I’ve been a fan of the Batman for decades, but I am uncomfortably aware that
A) he would have been considered “clinically insane” if he hadn’t been born the rich and powerful Bruce Wayne; and that
B) if he hadn’t been born the rich and powerful Bruce Wayne, but instead had been a working-class cop with military training, he probably would have strapped on automatic weapons to get his vengeance on the world that took his family away.
That’s why when me and my friends were having a joking argument I said the Punisher is better for the cities he’s in than Batman is.
The cops are in a shootout with the Joker. He’s setting off bombs, killing cops, laughing and otherwise having a good time. Batman comes in, beats him up, leaving him alive but in the process the Joker’s goons are still shooting the cops while fighting Batman.
The Punisher comes to the same scene with the Joker, he snipes him and a lieutenant of the Joker’s. Both hit the ground dead. The remaining goons surrender and soil themselves at the same time. The cops go home and hug their families and plan for a nice vacation they really need.
Going by Palladium books system Deus is either anarchist or aberrant.
https://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?60965-Rift-s-alignement-system-simply-WAY-better
Evil arguably, good not so much.
I really can’t see killing a corrupt warlord leader to be ‘evil’ per se. Especially since he’s doing it in order to create infrastructure which would actually help tens of thousands in the otherwise wartorn region :)
Also considering Indinge was going to have him shot for saying he was a corrupt leader (which he apparently was) :)
Not going to say Deus is good of course – I mean the guy has a lightning machine to go off as he laughs maniacally – but what he did here wasnt exactly ‘evil’ :) It’s sort of like killing Idi Amin or Pol Pot. :)
WOW, that’s ‘Injustice’ reasoning, right there. It’s not morally OK to kill someone in cold blood (much less order a minion to do it), even if it saves lives. You may decide you need to do it, anyway, but don’t believe it leaves you a saint.
I believe that is called “Anti-Hero” seeing as he can’t be called mercenary when hes paying for the persons down-fall instead of being paid to cause the down-fall.
Well, that’s exactly the point Dave was trying to make; that morality is very subjective and very relative. I personally would say that there are plenty of situations in which it may be morally required to kill someone. Now, those situations are obviously very extreme. They are something that the majority of people in developed nations will NEVER experience. But then look at people like Chris Kyle (the person American Sniper is based on). He spent his career as a Navy SEAL making probably the most direct moral choices of this kind. He would see an individual pointing a gun at one of his fellow soldiers and know that, if he did not kill that individual, his team mate would die.
Taking the life of another human being should never be done lightly or without regard. But I would absolutely say there are times when it is the “right” thing to do.
@Deanatay- isn’t it? Ever? That’s the sort of thought that has lead to the decline in Capitol Punishment, certainly. There’s a lot to be said there- the consideration that every life has the potential to go on to do good, things like that.
But carrying out an assassination, or an execution, or an air-strike or whatever, when you know that that person will be responsible for the deaths of innocents in the future? Especially when they’re own ‘moral weight’ is pulled down by prior blood on their hands? Is that Evil?
Are those who carry out executions evil, or those who order them? Would it be evil to kill a dolphin for food, when you’re starving? (Assuming that dolphins are sentient, which I believe they are.)
That’s where the slope becomes really, really slippery. And it doesn’t help at all when you’re working on the scale of government, where your actions can effect hundreds, or thousands, or millions even.
For a lot of people, taking even that one life is irredeemable. For some, it’s the reasons behind it that matter, and if your reasons are good, then the number of lives is irrelevant (thus are born Crusades and Jihads). Personally, I believe that we’re a bunch of angry, naked Plains Apes and that violence and killing, of each other and others, is a natural part of our existence, and so needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Deus did Good, for the sake of Evil, as a Villain. (see my above paragraph). Therefore, he shouldn’t be punished, but neither should he be lauded.
> @Deanatay-
I’m not Deanatay, but I’m with him/her.
> isn’t it? Ever?
IMHO it isn’t. Never. You can decide to do it anyway, for your own or someone else (good) reasons, thereby purposefully sacrificing your own moral ground and decidedly become a murderer. But that’s what you are after the deed. No matter if it’s an assassination, execution or an airstrike (where you even have to accept killing innocent lives). There’s no moral excuse for any of that.
“It’s not morally OK to kill someone in cold blood” – yes it is. Totally depends on context and who you’re killing. Wroth is a virtue as far as I’m concerned.
If you time travel back to the 1940s and see Hitler (after he’s perpetrated the Holocaust so we don’t have the morally ambiguous ‘should you kill someone before he commits the crime’ – which btw I’d still kill him for anyway – moot point)…. anyway, you see Hitler and have a clean shot at him, and he has no guards around, and you could kill him in cold blood, cmon…. you’d pull the trigger :)
While I believe Hitler was evil incarnate.
If I traveled back in time I would not kill him prior to the end of W.W.2.
This is not because of any moral objections I might have, it is because the secondary and tertiary after effects of the war had a very beneficial effect on society.
That being said, I would do my damdest to see the sob was caught and turned over to the military so he could face trial for his actions.
Lets try this another way. If you DID kill Hitler, would you consider yourself evil for doing so?
Not for killing him.
But I would have moral qualms for the prevention of certain after affects.
Though I probably would hang on to him for a while to see if a reward was being offered.
Your morals are not mine. And I think mine are higher than yours. While at it, I also think that mine are higher than God’s.
Everyone thinks their morals are above those of other people. It’s a fundamental of morals – otherwise we’d adopt whatever morals we would think are ‘higher’.
In my case, I see something as a virtue that many mistake for a negative trait – because I feel that without wroth, too many vile deeds would go unpunished and not enough fear generated of repeating sed vile acts again (prevention is important).
“WOW, that’s ‘Injustice’ reasoning, right there.”
Actually, in Injustice, Superman went a WHOLE lot further than Deus. :) Far more evil than Deus has been here – he targeted and killed even heroes and people who had no good OR evil intentions, one way or another. He also actively sided with villains like Sinestro.
Deus just had one corrupt warlord killed, who was going to have him thrown from the balcony and had very likely killed a whole lot of people and didn’t care much, if at all, for his people’s wellbeing (even as a side issue). And Deus still gave him the peaceful option -first-.
“It’s not morally OK to kill someone in cold blood (much less order a minion to do it),”
He did try it the peaceful way, and was threatened with being shot when he wouldnt just hand over money :)
“even if it saves lives.”
Pretty sure the Punisher, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, etc would be considered villains then. Sure, The Punisher is an antihero, but even Wonder Woman has killed in cold blood in order to save others lives. :) Maxwell Lord, for example.
“You may decide you need to do it, anyway, but don’t believe it leaves you a saint.”
Not a saint – hardly. Just … not a villain either. The worst I can call him right now is an anti-hero.
When you are offering to benefit every citizen of their entire nation with roads, hospitals, and schools, and the King refuses to snap out of his kleptocracy long enough to see that he befits as well, even if not as directly, then yes, it is a justified killing.
His son might be a little more cooperative, now that he knows the score. Of course, depending on how much he liked his father (and his one panel seems to support that he does) he’ll also probably hold a deep seated hatred for Deus and might plot a few assassination attempts if he thinks he can get away with it.
Umm… No, he’s doing it to give himself a power-base and make even more money in a place where he’s not subject to scrutiny. The fact that he’s helping tens of thousands is entirely secondary and, in fact, may be just the justification for his actions and nothing else.
Gotta admit it, Dave, he (Wanderer) has a point there.
If his allegations are true, though, he’s definitely the lesser of two evils.
HUH?… but… his name isn’t STAN… HE’s the “Lesser of Two Evils”*…
*”Eric Flint’s: The Grantville Gazzette” Volume 38… for those of you that can’t access it directly from my link due to DRM issues on the site and want to see it you can subscribe to it there.
Does it really matter if he’s doing it for himself, and helping tens of thousands, or doing it for the tens of thousands? He’s obviously doing it for the former, but it’s still a net good for humanity and especially the people there.
If a person does something for himself or herself, which also helps millions, that doesnt make them evil :) Might make him greedy, but like the movie Wall Street said…
“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.”
“I really can’t see killing a corrupt warlord leader to be ‘evil’ per se.” See, this is D&D ethics coming out. Killing the goblin is ok because he’s evil, so that’s good. Wrong. Killing the “corrupt warlord”, espeically in front of his son as someone down the comment section pointed out, is clearly an evil act.
Deus did it to further his own goals without a thought to the moral implications of “gee this guy is a bad guy” and that’s (part of) what makes it evil. He wouldn’t have done if if the warlord played ball, so he’s doing it for convience/fun and not for the greater good.
Good/Evil at it’s core comes down to intentions. Deus didn’t intend to “save” the region by killing the warlord, he intended to make things easier for himself, and that’s clearly an evil doers mindset.
Weather or not his son was watching is irrelevant. It makes the action cruel – and even that only if the son was a decent person – but not a inherently evil one.
… Up until that specific event, at least..
You’re claiming that killing the father in front of the son was just fine and dandy if the son isn’t a “decent person” by your standards? Bad people can love their parents, too.
The one-dimensional villain who will kill their own parents, lovers, friends at the drop of a hat isn’t an interesting character, they are merely psychopaths. It’s easy to write a story about a psychopath. It’s far more difficult to make a villain a sympathetic character.
I’d like to think I have no pity for the vile and wicked. So yes.
The second part of your post makes no sense in the context of my and previous posts above me. I’m guessing you’re going on a tangent, because it’s surely not in reply to anything I’ve sed.
“Killing the “corrupt warlord”, espeically in front of his son as someone down the comment section pointed out, is clearly an evil act.”
So… killing a murderer in front of his son is evil?
Yes, Deus did it for reasons OTHER than the morality of killing Indinge. For greed and personal motivations Doesnt matter. Killing can be either a good or bad thing – a good or evil thing. When Maxima was going to kill Vehemence, was she being evil? No, of course not. She was being good.
In fact, if anything, if watching his evil father die forces his son to be a ‘more good’ man, or at least forces him to do good whether he wants to be good or evil, then it’s still a net gain for ‘good.’
Btw I’m not saying Deus is good :) Or even that he’s not a villain. Just that this particular thing he did was not necessarily ‘evil.’ :)
I like DaveB’s take on it. Even evil people in comics don’t actually think ‘I’m going to be evil today.’
Unless you’re a Captain Planet Villain. Then you wake up and say ‘I will be evil today.’
Should C’Thillia not be on the who is who list?
He(?) has been mentioned by name, and killed a man on screen.
But, he didn’t say anything, he just showed up and glared.
Also, who’s the unnamed ‘troop transport’ on the balcony?
Seeing as the two people in question just kind of seem to fade into view that person may not be a transport but maybe an illusionist instead.
Maybe its even only one person and this is just his or her power being used to kill instead of keeping hidden.
I think that is just C’thillia doing his Sith impersonation (“You do not see me standing here”, followed by a Force-Choke), maybe with a short-range teleport added on.
Hard to say what just happened. Clearly there’s C’Thillia, who seems reptilian and has some sort of death gaze, but its sudden appearance could be its own power, someone else’s, or even tech-based. The form on the balcony could be C’Thillia teleporting, or someone else doing something, I’m not sure.
What I AM sure of, is that Deus just ordered his minions to kill Indinge Sr., thus establishing him firmly in the ‘villain’ category of characters. Also, first glimpse on Indinge Jr!
Killing a warlord who was going to have him killed because he wasn’t going to just give the warlord the money and ‘trust’ that some of that money will make it where it was needed and intended? o_O
Oh yeah, that firmly makes him a ‘villain’ all right. Hey, if you believe that, maybe you would be interested in buying this slightly used bridge
You don’t quite have the sequence down:
Deus makes his pitch, in the process, insulting Indige.
Indige, for a combination of reasons, refuses the pitch, and when his own counter-proposal (just give me the money) is likewise refused, he says, “Leave now, before I have you shot.” He is perfectly willing to just let Deus go and try to do his empire-building in some other nation. The insults, however, have pushed him into making his perfectly legal demand (get out of here) coupled with a threat of violence if it is not obeyed.
Deus then issues the kill-order. Indige responds by attempting to give one of his own, but is cut short by the assassin stepping in and ‘abdicating’ him.
By any analysis, Deus walked in there fully prepared and ready to kill anyone who opposed him. That’s a villain’s action-plan.
If this was a TV show where I could do a bunch of quick cuts and sound effects, (or a manga where I could spend a page or two just on the two of them appearing) there would be enough space to make what’s happening more clear, so I’ll just go ahead and say it. The one on the balcony decloaked, and in the process decloaked Cthillia.
Maybe I should add a nonomatopoeia “DECLOAK” to the page.
Yeah, I’ll make a badge for her today.
In my head canon, Deus probably likes to think of himself as a villain (thus the lightning wall and maniacal laughter), but in general ends up doing more good through his actions than actual evil. He also plays the long game, which can require more sacrifices than someone nearer to the pure-good end of the spectrum would be comfortable with. And it’s just plain fun to bring people into your line of thinking, good, evil, or in between, so I’m totally with him on that score.
Time will tell what he’s really up to :D
he seems to be true neutral to me, doesn’t care what’s right or wrong, willing to go to any lengths for his plans, and comfortable with any methods to keep it going.
And seems to be still thinking ahead despite this. Improving the lives of the people in the country, means less opposition to any plans he eventually enacts. As long as the people continue to have better lives than now.
Sadly, the king couldn’t be a part of it.
More like chaotic neutral.
True Neutral character represent balance, and have a need ensure the status quo of nature doesn’t get unbalanced. They see the spectrum as part of an integrated whole that checks and balances each other. Dues Ex Machina cares nothing for balance, or maintaining the status quo of the natural world.
He wants to give billions to a poor person to see what’d happen.
He basically owns a nation for no better reason than because he wanted to play a Director of Economics. And see what he could do to an economy.
He is both rival too, and helper of Archeon [if I saw that right], and has no problems helping or having formed a super hero taskforce. Why? Because why not?
So yeah. Chaotic Neutral. He isn’t truly an evil character, as much as he is a hobby villainist for the sake of villainy. But on the same hand he also does a lot of good, because it likewise tickled his fancy, or he thought it’d be interesting.
Still. I hope Dave can pull off a long planner, intelligent character. The only one that was really any good was Lex Luthor.
Why guess at his motivations wrt nation building? He has openly stated them. “A few billion in, a few dozen billion out.”
The same with “helping” Archon. He isn’t “helping” them so much as they are a customer of his. So again, he is making a profit.
Isn’t that the motivation for any investor? Put something in in the hopes or expectations of getting more out? Does that make them evil?
No, it doesn’t make them evil. That is my exact point.
More like chaotic neutral.
True Neutral character represent balance, and have a need ensure the status quo of nature doesn’t get unbalanced. They see the spectrum as part of an integrated whole that checks and balances each other. Dues Ex Machina cares nothing for balance, or maintaining the status quo of the natural world.
He wants to give billions to a poor person to see what’d happen.
He basically owns a nation for no better reason than because he wanted to play a Director of Economics. And see what he could do to an economy.
He is both rival too, and helper of Archeon [if I saw that right], and has no problems helping or having formed a super hero taskforce. Why? Because why not?
So yeah. Chaotic Neutral. He isn’t truly an evil character, as much as he is a hobby villainist for the sake of villainy. But on the same hand he also does a lot of good, because it likewise tickled his fancy, or he thought it’d be interesting.
Still. I hope Dave can pull off a long planner, intelligent character. The only one that was really any good was Lex Luthor.
No, true neutral CAN represent balance. It can also represent an everyday person who just lives their life without being an asshole, and without wanting to donate to every charity they see, without following every single law such as speeding occasionally, and without giving in to every single spontaneous urge. In other words, true neutral is what what the majority of the human race is.
Also, as a suggestion, try reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It has one of, if not the most intelligent villain I’ve ever read in literature. Certainly stomps Luthor. Better than Grand Admiral Thrawn or Xanatos or even Palpatine.
To be fair, that’s one of the situations where the author himself is significantly intelligent and writing in his ‘field’- enough above the average populace that he can write slightly less intelligently than his best, and still have it come out smarter than most.
Yeah, but he wanted other good examples, and that’s some. The fact the author is intelligent is a BONUS heh.
That’s not true. In that it’s the everyday person. Mostly since there are so many different types of people. And most are either Lawful Neutral [adhering to the law so they don’t land in jail. Or trusting the system to protect them when things go bad. And guiding their morals along those laws.].
Or they are Neutral Evil [Ive heard from so many people that ‘you have to look out for number one’. And it’s all about furthering their own interests, goals, and agendas. Anyone else who isn’t them doesn’t matter. You see this in so many people nowadays. All that matters is Numero Uno, and are self entitled pricks. Only caring about the law / others if it’s on their side in some way.]
A true neutral person, as in one who doesn’t adhere to law / chaos, or good / evil. Are rare. And usually transient from one other alignment to the other.
Still Dues is Chaotic Neutral.
Since either his actions fall under: I want to see what happens if; I did it for the lolz; or ‘because why not?’. Sometimes he does it for reasons that don’t fall clearly in either of those categories. But he’s not true neutral.
He can be on the side of good, and help others better themselves … because it would be fun to do at the time. Or it’s something that he wants to do because.
He can be evil, and step on others. Because it’d be efficient, or further his goals. Or it’d be fun to do at the time. Or simply because it tickles his fancy.
But he is intelligent.
The reason I picked Lex Luthor is because unlike the others you’ve chosen. Other than I forgot Xanatos. Is because Lex is canonically known to be the smartest person in the DC Universe [alongside Brainiac. But Brainiac is a computer so that doesn’t count.]. Since those other shows / places don’t have Levels of Intellect [the ability to hold concurrent Genius Level thoughts simultaneously at any given time. Lex can hold 12 thoughts / plans of the genius level at the same time. That’s like 12 Geniuses in your head going all at once.] as part of their cannon it’s harder to pit X against Y.
_______________________
Not even “Looking out for Number One” is necessarily an evil mentality. It’s very easy to be one yes. But someone that believes in looking out for themselves first, and after that’s done, help the people around him is still a good guy, and someone that looks out for themselves first and ends it there without hurting others is more neutral than anything. It’s more looking out for Number One and making sure others can’t for themselves is when it becomes evil.
I consider myself a Chaotic Neutral, I leave people alone neither helping nor harming others. I just prefer to be left alone. But I am fond of cracking jokes and doing weird stuff for the hell of it or to gauge reaction. I look out for number one, though sometimes besides preferring being left alone, when I’m comfortable, I might reach out and help someone out. A select few people, and I have to be in the mood to do so. But when I am, I do it pretty much at random and when people least expect it. Sometimes making sure they don’t know who did it with an agent like an employee doing it for me just because the reaction amuses me.
Evil Neutral.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil
As it says. I’ts All</b? about number one. And it's not that it's about making sure that others can't. It's rather that other's simply exist to further what they want. As well as thinking of others as not people.
So people from Jersey Shores [narcissists] , "Thugs", bullies, and a large list of others.
_____________
Gah! It sucks that there isn’t an edit button to fix the messed up tag. Sorry that that reply ended up in caps XD. I only meant to bold All.
I was using the definition I saw in a WoTC article that good goes out of their way to help others, neutral doesn’t go out of their way to help others, nor hurt others, and evil goes out of their way to hurt others for their own benefit. So that looking out for number one and not stopping others from doing the same under that definition is generally more neutral since they’re not going out and hurting others. More the quiet guy that takes care of his and moves on with the day.
I think we’ll see what Deus’ true motives are. I’m still on the side that he is generally an all right guy that likes to put on airs of villainy. You know, like a pro-wrestler playing bad guy. If he wants to help the people, and profit at the same time, this is one big show to attempt to quash any resistance in the throne room, and realized that he was going to have to kill the king to get anywhere I would still classify him as not a villain. Sometimes one must get blood on one’s hands. And sometimes you have to play the bad guy to be the good guy.
If on the other hand, he lets the country rot, strip mines it for its resources, and makes a happy fun time land to run visitors through in an attempt to make it look like he’s a good leader, then he certainly is a villain.
Actions are the key here. The actions of leadership afterwards will tell us if he’s on the side of angels, demons, or profit. And profit in this case does not make him a villain if profit includes improving the lot of the people and stabilizing the region.
Again
Evil Neutral.
I use Trope Pages for my definition of the Alignments. But more than that. neutral doesn’t go out of their way to help others, nor hurt others ,
As you pointed out Neutral.
and evil goes out of their way to hurt others for their own benefit. And not really. Evil are those who put themselves above others, and either see others as merely tools for their own progression. Or they truly look out for number one, and stop there. Since noone else matters than number one.
Seriously, look at the trope page linked. And the list of people who fall under Neutral Evil.
As for Dues. I put him as Chaotic Neutral. Since he doesn’t care about the law and order. Nor does he care about being good or evil. It’s all about whatever tickles his whimsy. Whether it’s helping a nation / a random person. Or it’s about screwing over someone else to further his goals. He’s greedy, and amoral yes. But he’s also willing to do good if it’s something that piques his interest [like helping a 3rd world nation’s economy. Or giving billions to a poor person].
I will disagree with one point. Lex is not the only good long planner. David Xanatos as well, and in this case, I would look at Xanatos for inspiration.
Xanatos is the man :)
I forgot about Xanatos. And he even ended up with a trope named after him. But Lex was one of my favorite role models as a child. But yeah, Xanatos is pretty good.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit
He’s like one of those video game bad guys that you actually don’t want to kill. And you wish there was a sequel just on him.
That reminds me of a friend playing one of the elder scrolls games that came before Oblivion. He came up against a wizard at the top floor of a hideout that he could not kill. The character was a side quest that could be left out at the end of the game.
The rest of the building was a nice setup. My friend’s character set up base there and just avoided the top floor. The rest of it had been cleared of enemies which did not respawn.
We joked that it was an understood rule. “You keep your floor, I’ll keep mine. And we’ll be content”
I’m always so bad with those villains. I mean it doesn’t help that I play most characters sorta like paladins, but I usually just want to to take those guys down.
I don’t know if he quite counts, but I spent all of ME2 wanting to punch the Illusive Man in the face. Really, it was one of the only highlights of 3’s ending.
Yeah, the fact that Shepard, who was charismatic enough to talk his/her archenemy into shooting himself in the head when he was about to win in the first game, could barely offer anything more than a feeble annoyance at the IM’s behavior in ME2 was annoying.
On the other hand, Shepard can talk his/her archenemy into shooting himself in the head in ME3 also… assuming you took the paragon or renegade option every time (s)he talked to the Illusive Man. Pretty much the same way he talked Saren into shooting himself, too… by proving that he’s been indoctrinated. The Catalyst itself makes the same point that Shepard did. “He could not have controlled us, because we already controlled him.”
Still not as emotionally satisfying as if you could’ve slapped that smug bastard in the face in ME2, but you take what you can get. Though I suppose in a manner of speaking, Shepard did slap him in the face, right at the end. After all, Shepard just told him that “I’m taking your multi-billion credit investment, and I’m going to do things my way”, followed by Miranda quitting Cerberus. IM was not happy.
Lot of good/great villains. Handsome Jack comes to mind. It sucked killing him in the game. Very sad.
Villains saying “would you kindly” … I do enjoy that.
Top 5 favorite villains in video games (as far as I’m concerned, at least):
1) GLaDoS
2) Wheatley (yes I know, first two favorites are from Portal and Portal 2)
3) Marlene (from The Last of Us – because she’s not really a villain – it’s all based on perspective)
4) Andrew Ryan (Bioshock 1)
5) Vaas Montenegro (Far Cry 3)
Main theme – none of them considered themselves evil.
“Cthillia” Is that a play on the name of Cthulhu’s secret daughter “Cthylla”?
Looking at the eyes, I’d say Cthilia definitely doesn’t look human, probably serpentine (and thus maybe Alien).
well, Mystique from the X-men (movies at least) sure as heck doesn’t look like a “mundane” human when she’s not in disguise… but she IS human, not an “Alien” or “Lizard”… so don’t go all judgmental right yet… and just as an aside… isn’t she the Arabic super that Max thinks she killed? the two of the pictures seem awfully similar in clothing styles…
No she is not.
He is still alive elsewhere.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1189
In much fiction, those who will sacrifice others for the greater good, are usually considered bad by heroes who will only sacrifice themselves, (and somehow survive).
Deus is a man who knows what he wants, and will go to great means to get it. At this point, I would not call him evil, he just wants his own way, and is willing to harm some people in order to archive it. Granted, he tried the diplomatic option first. I doubt he truely cares about the people having decent infrastructure beyond improving the base value of the country for his own means.
His true goal will reveal where he actually stands, though at this point, I would say somewhere neutral.
Sacrificing yourself knowing that you will survive is not a sacrifice!!
Just because the character survives due to plot armor doesn’t mean the character expects to survive. That was kind of the point of Tony Stark’s character arc in the first Avengers movie. When he carried that nuke through the space portal, he was not expecting to come back. He survived due to a combination of blind luck and Robert Downey Jr.’s contract.
Wasn’t talking about him
To me it seems that in a way you were. In the OP it alludes to heroes only being okay with sacrificing themselves and somehow surviving. It doesn t say anything about going into that sacrifice expecting to survive. In that case I would agree that is not a sacrifice. I ve read enough stories where a protagonist goes into a near certain death situation and comes out unscathed because from the get go he had an awesome plan that only the reader didn’t know. Maybe for a while it seemed like a sacrifice but turned out it wasn’t.
Sheasons answer given and then backed up by an example tries to show the difference. If someone does something and fully expects to die doing it that is a sacrifice. If that someone survives that for dumb luck, plot armor or someone elses plans or any reason not under his control or knowledge it still stands that it was intended to be a sacrifice. And Tony Stark in the Avengers movie is an example that many people can be expected to know about.
At least thats how I understood it. If you meant something else please do share.
Specifically stated “knowing that you will survive”, not “hoping to survive”
Also, was not talking about anyone in particular
A good example of a “sacrifice that isn’t” would be Les stepping in between Dabbles and whatshersword’s sword: he knew he would be unharmed so it was not a sacrifice or even a risk on his behalf
An example of someone who sacrificed themselves (or thought they did) but survived would be in a recent episode of “Heroes Reborn” when Malina tried to protect Not-Chuck from Not-Chuck’s psycho wife (not an ex as they never divorced, everyone including Malina thought she had been shot, but it turned out to be her first guardian who got shot
The thing is, noone mentioned anything about a hero sacrificing themselves knowing they will survive. So your comment looks like it is suppose to counter ThisGuy’s post, when they don’t mention said issue.
Actually, ThisGuy mentions a hero sacrificing themselves (and somehow surviving) in his first paragraph, and he didn’t mention any specifics so didn’t see the need to either
The point is that in comic the heroes doesn’t really know they’ve got plot armor. The idea is that every time Batman steps out of the shadows he fully expect that this might be the last time. Stopping a purse snatcher he’s probably not very worried, but every time he goes up against his signature opponents, or any true super human, he is prepared to die.
The readers know he’s got the plot armor, and to break through that would mean things are going to get very strange, and usually it will turn out that it’s all a sham or it will later be declared as non canon.
I can remember two instances when DC tried to break the plot armor. In separate stories they killed off both Batman and Superman only to bring them both back from the dead. Thier resurrection was said to be due to popular demand. AFAIK both deaths has since been retconned.
That always bugged me about Aslan.
Aslan was a huge Jesus allegory, it wasn’t surprising at all. The entirety of the Narnia series was basically a new biblical fiction. C.S. Lewis was a very devout christian and wrote them that way deliberately.
Or undeliberately- I heard that the whole ‘Christian Allegory’ thing was entirely un-planned, and was just how it came out. To be fair, when you submerge yourself in a faith, it isn’t entirely surprising that your stories are going to be similar to those of the faith you follow.
Given the rest of C.S Lewis’s writing, the idea that Aslan isn’t a Jesus allegory is, to put it mildly, unlikely.
My understanding is that it wasn’t consciously planned, but when Lewis saw it he decided to go with it.
My understanding is that Lewis objected to the word allegory for Aslan. It’s not intended as an allegory, it’s intended as an alternate-universe Jesus while still being the same person to the limit of Lewis’s ability to depict him. IIRC at one point Aslan says he has a different name in the childrens’ world.
Yea I didn’t think he’d be using his own powers there
So Cthillia is a super (and I’m guessing the mummy guy from the hypothetical villain page https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1189).
In terms of Deus however, getting someone killed because they won’t go along with your plans is kind of hard to reconcile with “hero”. This isn’t far removed from building a base under an extinct volcano and dressing the mooks in one piece jumpsuits, just sayin’.
beat me to it by a few seconds :D
He did also remove a corrupt warlord that stood in the way of reformation and improvement.
With the obstruction out of the way, Deus is (probably) free to make the lives of the civilians that live there much better (good infrastructure includes healthcare and education, which will massively improve life conditions).
So it could be argued that murdering this individual and taking over the government improve more lives than that it destroys, thus making you a good guy (or at least not evil)
Removing a dictator to free his people is the act of a hero. On the other hand, Deus’ motivations are not altruistic. On the gripping hand, I doubt anyone but Indinge’s henchmen care why Deus did that. All they will see is schools, clean water and hope.
You’re a Motie?
Heroes remove the evil ruler, then move on. Villians remove the leader (good or evil) then set up shop. Villian do not have to be card carrying evil, though most are.
Heroes typically don’t care about the common people they are ‘saving’, expect as an excuse to show off (specially the ‘wandering hero type’), otherwise they would stick around at least long enough to ensure that their new-found freedom will last and that their fortunes and future is secured
Except motive matters. We know what Deus is saying, but is this really why he is doing it? Is reformation and improvement of the country a end goal or a side effect? It may be good for the people, but it won’t make him good if his long-term plans are evil.
Running a soup kitchen doesnt make you any less evil if you are doing it to cover your plans to steal a nuke (that you then plan on using).
Bottom line: it’s too soon tikis for sure.
As far as the people are concerned though, their dictator is gone and they got schools. That’s a clear win. Isn’t it still a good deed if the effect is just a by product?
Maybe his ultimate motive isn’t good, but there are still a lot of good side effects to his deed, at the very least shielding him from being called evil.
“You may call me a bad guy for taking over a country and making a fortune from it, but just ask the people living there. Send them an email asking how they enjoy the electricity and internet my actions provided them”
You can still do a good deed and get paid for it
It seems a good deed for the moment. Though I m guessing to really turn that land around there will be a few more unfortunate health deteriorations among those corrupt bureaucrates and who knows what else to assert his control over this country. And one of the main reasons this is questionable is if you are willing to kill someone maybe even many someones to gain control over an asset (in this case a country so yea big asset) how good does this leave you? How big does this potential gain need to be so you are willing to kill for it?
In my opinion this isn’t a question of black and white but one of grey areas. If I have a rich neighbor does that mean I should be allowed to break into his house and kill him if I want to do that to distribute his belongings among the poor people of my town while only claiming 5% of it for myself? Does seem a far clearer case doesn’t it? And yet it is very similar there are just less people involved.
As Tom White said intent matters. If he takes over this country to stop the fighting in the area, build infrastructure and raise its revenue and thats it? Then I’d say its a mostly lightish grey I could certainly live with it.
But if his plan is to take over the country do all this just to set the stage for later being able to enact a nefarious plan this could be very different thing.
There’s also a difference between ‘rich guy who got his fortune legally and ethically’ and ‘corrupt general of a dictator who murders kids that refuse to be child soldiers’. Zaire in this time period… the dictators and warfare was incredibly brutal and vicious, pretty much identical to what’s happening in Syria right now and what ISIS is doing, albeit contained within a single country and not religiously motivated. And far better televised/the internet. Just like the differences between the American Korean war and the American Vietnam war… there wasn’t one. The latter was just far better televised because of emerging globalization technology.
So… fairly certain Deus just did a serious good deed. Sure, it wasn’t in a legitimate court, but there is no legitimate court. That guy was a mass murdering sociopath and Deus executed him for reasons that were almost certainly entirely truthful. Indinge WOULD have just wasted the money and been a small time Kim Jong Il. And then we know, since this is a flashback, that he turns the entire country around and gives it a working, growing, infrastructure and economy.
Whether or not Deus is evil, or even a villain, cannot be determined with current evidence. He IS however, clearly very pragmatic and does not obey asinine ‘good shall not kill’ ideals.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicity
This and https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutLexLuthorACheck
Deus isn’t a card-carrying supervillain who runs a dictatorship because it just isn’t effective.
He’s practical if nothing else.
Although the lightning-generator isn’t exactly “Practical”
Tsk, Tsk… i’m sure that it’s all part of the “therapy” he has to undergo for his… “condition”…
You mean that thing with his googly eyes? o_O
No, no, no! You run a soup kitchen to dispose of the evidence generated by your night time work as a hitman. When you steal a nuke you use a circus.
An Afro Circus? o_O
Nope mummy guy is from Max’s past.
Not the same dude.
That guy is wearing a turban and bandanna, Cthillia… Ok I see the similarities, but they’re different people.
Honestly I thought the same thing – that they’re both the same person :)
In the same way that two people with a similar hair style are the same person…
It was easily clear from the art that they were not the same person. I didn’t even need to go look at the Fingers at Maximum Steeplage page to recognize that.
No, it was quite a bit different than ‘two people with the same hairstyle.’
Since ALL you can see, facially, of either of them, are the eyes, and one of them has their eyes covered in shadow, while the other you can more clearly see the eyes, and one wears armor, while the other doesnt…
It was pretty easy to mistakenly think that they’re the same person. It’s more like seeing two people in burqas and thinking they’re both the same person.
For you, perhaps. As I said, it was quite clear to me that they were not the same person. And since it was quite clear to me, I cannot sympathize with your lack of perception since it is not mine.
What about getting someone killed because they were trying to get you killed first? Kingsly ordered Deus killed- Deus then ordered the King to be killed. Deus’ henchman just happened to move faster than the King’s- self defence?
A legal defense maybe but not a moral defense. With that much power Deus could have clearly chosen to evade rather than kill but he did not.
Lawyers and others use legal defenses to get away with evil stuff all the damn time.
You are inventing things to try to support your position. We do not know if Deus had (has, since I don’t think this arc is finished) a non-lethal way to prevent getting shot by the security force which had just been ordered to kill him, do we?
Would you also claim that a troop of non-powered soldiers did not have a “moral defense” if they shot their way out of the palace to the airfield after the same “kill them” order was given? I would hope not.
The king did NOT order Deus killed first. He said, “Get out before I have you shot.” That’s a threat, yes, but not an actual instruction to kill; it fact, in explicitly lays out a perfectly legal demand on the part of the ruling power in the nation expelling him from his palace and borders.
Deus then says, “Abdicate him”–that’s the first kill-order, which Indige attempts to counter with his own, which then gets truncated.
You are claiming that ‘abdicate’ means ‘kill’? Do you even know the meaning of the word? Either word? o_O
It means ‘make him renounce the throne’ but it WAS clearly an implied order to kill him. :)
Whereas Indinge’s order was a lot more straightforward – have him shot, and have him thrown from the balcony :)
SO is C’thillia the 4th character from this page? https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1189
Not sure, we didn’t really get a good look at Mystery Villain #4’s eyes, and if it is the same guy, why is he no longer working for Deus? o_O
Might be a mercenary working for Deus at the moment? Also there’s not necessarily an implication that he isn’t still working for Deus, just that he’s not in the same place.
Perhaps he got replaced by Vale?
Cthillia looks slimmer. And the Mystery Villain isn’t wearing any armor/gear.
Well, we do have to remember that this part of the flashback is a flashback itself, going back at least ten plus years
According to DaveB, it’s not the same person.
Not to mention, female
Honestly, you have to admit Cthilla doesnt ‘look’ female in that outfit. It’s a reasonable mistake to make.
Hmmm. Leaning towards Evil here.
Haven’t we seen the guy in the mummy wrappings before?
Mummy wrappings are all the rage these days. Don’t mistake one hipster villain with another.
Giving someone options you know they won’t take, does that make you a bad guy? Or someone who knows what people are really like?
Is a doctor saying “you take these pills or you die” a bad guy?
Is that a rhetorical question? o_O
Well, the difference here being that taking pills doesn’t have a negative effect on you. I think what Guesticus meant was something more like “Would you rather be my slave, or get killed?” Both options, one involving death, are bad for you. A doctor prescribing you medication in order to prevent that doesn’t really seem to fit into the same category.
Pretty much yes: not taking medication that can help you is not quite the same thing as “you can have one million dollars in the currency of your choice, or stay and be the parent you pretend to be” (yes, finally got around to watching “Dark Shadows”)
My question was intentionally overexaggerated a lot. But Deus is basically building this king’s country’s stability. Indinge does not have elections to fear in four years, so what is good for his country in the long term is good for him.
Maybe a warlord has not yet made this experience yet. As seemingly many third world rulers are unaware of this fact.
IIRC Indinge has just conquered this new country. He is too small to go without help from here. At least Deus does not want political power. The offer Deus made was not all that bad, till that point.
Killing Indigne turned Deus on the bad guy side.
Hmm, killing the guy who has just forcibly carved out a piece of land for himself and refused an offer to help his ‘people’ because he wouldn’t be able to line his own pockets? How does that make Deus a bad guy again? o_O
Because if you’re the good guy, you don’t go around murdering people just because it’s more convenient.
Really? Pretty sure we do that all the time. I mean, I think it’s awesomely convenient that I can eat like a pig here in America instead of losing a tiny fraction of that convenience to send it to starving people around the world.
And also, ask the hundreds of thousands of people in that country if Deus is a bad guy after telling them he brutally murdered Indinge with a hammer coated in rusty nails. I bet ya they all still say he’s a good guy. Because Indinge made their lives hell and Deus got rid of him, AND fixed their entire country, put power in their homes, clean water in their baths, and food on their tables.
Actually if Deus had done it JUST for convenience, he would have STARTED by just killing Indinge Sr. and not offered him the deal. :)
No, but sometimes you kill them in self-defense after they order you shot.
He did not order his men to shoot. He threatened to do so if Deus didn’t leave. He had every right to order Deus out of his own palace and out of his country; Deus walked in with an assassin ready to roll if the king didn’t accept his offer.
The fact that Deus’s victim was a bad guy doesn’t make Deus’s any less a bad guy. It just means he’s genre savvy enough to realize that far too many people believe that old saw, “The enemy if my enemy is my friend,” as opposed to, “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy.”
Deus strategy here seems to be the “Company Store” on a national level. A 21st century East India Company. Such strategies are great for people like Deus. They are, however, horrific for his “employees.”
Only horrific if his ’employees’ are corrupt, like Indinge
Second try:
The real sad part about this is that Deus offered to make the King one of the wealthiest men in Africa. And that wasn’t good enough for the petty dictator.
And so he ordered violence, and so he got violence in return.
Indinge did not order violence. He threatened violence, yes, but the only order he gave was “Get out”. Deus decided to kill him in response to a final refusal.
Indinge had every intent of carrying out that ‘threat’, he has already proven that in the way he got his country
He want ecomnomical control which means everything that the goverment wants to do that costs money or influences the industry must be okay-ed by him,sounds like political power for me.
Who truly rules someone? The one who writes the laws they live under , or the one who writes the paycheck they need to live on? And what happens when you combine both powers?
If the doctor caused whatever condition the pills are intended to alleviate, then yes they’re bad… If they are only a temporary fix and you must continue to provide something to them to get more pills, then they’re worse… If the condition will eventually kill you anyway (and they don’t tell you this), then they’re worst.
Indeed… The doctor should probably have said “You take these pills which will make you puke your stomach out in an hour and make your hair fall out later and cause you some headaches for the next few years until you die, or you die much earlier than in a few years.”
And add “or you pay me a fortune and take this other pill which only makes your hair fall out but causes no pain and keeps you from dying for about the same time as the other one, or you die much earlier than in a few years.”
Historical evidence about good and evil tells, that the good one is the one who wins in the end. Because he can decide what good and evil is. That is also the reason why good always wins.
Had this warlord some “super defense” installed Deus would now be a main villain in this country. As it stands he is a saviour.
Great minds think alike it seems :-) That was good ninjaing there. We both posted at the same theory at exactly the same time!
Gaa! That was supposed to be a reply to Sephiroth!
found it nevertheless DaveM ;-)
Interesting powers. If I were to guess, I’d say Cthillia induced a natural heart attack there? Some form of medical power?
And something that looks like teleportation and invisibility?
Is this magic, or some combination of regular powers? Maybe both?
Could be TK, quick powerful squeeze of the heart (say to the size of a marble) Indinge takes a dirt nap.
While we didn’t get a good look at Cthillia, shouldn’t she(?) get a who’s who? There is a name, and she had a prominent role, even if no speaking
Part of gaining an entry is to be fully revealed (why else do you think Indinge didn’t get an entry?)
By ‘fully revealed’, meaning ‘who they are and what they do’
I didn’t even think about Indinge, he probably should have gotten an entry to.
As for fully reveal, we’ve seen plenty of characters get a who’s who as soon as they were named, before we knew what they did.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1484 Vehemence got his first entry with ‘Big and apparently double crossy’
Hell, even Maxima’s first entry was ‘mysterious golden woman’ https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/209
In Kevin’s case, that wasn’t his first appearance (remember, he was lurking under that tree from the start of the battle, and poked Dabbles’ sword with a branch), and Maxi and Anvil got their first entry on page four (Wart didn’t get an entry because he was just in the background), and while we may not of known what they did, we knew they were important, heck, remember how long it was before Sydney got her full entry?
A lawful good paladin wouldn’t kill a bandit for theft, that would go against his alignment, he would first attempt to arrest the bandit (the fact the bandit was stealing for his family to eat is inconsequential to the paladin) if the bandit then tried to resist arrest and attacked the paladin then the paladin will protect himself (self preservation trumps good or evil).
Is Law or Good the primary driving force for the Paladin?
I’d love to see a story where a Paladin kills a bandit for doing Evil- and thus inspires the offspring/friend/whatnot of that bandit (who may not have known it was a Paladin) to take up the mantle of Holy Warrior and become a paladin themselves, in order to bring justice to the one who killed their friend/parent/whatnot.
If it ever comes down to be lawful or good, a paladin chooses good, to do otherwise is being lawful stupid
A Lawful Good Paladin, may, depending on his culture and the laws of his land, kill a bandit for simply being a bandit, hang him for theft, amputate one or both hands, cut off his nose, enslave him (though not in 1st edition D&D–I don’t know if slavery is explicitly evil in 2ed.+), transport him for life, flog him, or imprison him (at hard labour, in solitary confinement or in prison, for various terms).
All have been considered appropriate, good, and moral acts at some time or another, most within the last century.
Regarding DaveB’s ethics/morality discussion: YEP. There’s Good and there’s Evil, but sorting the two out is rarely easy. And one thing I thing I’ve learned in life that doesn’t help: you gotta take the Good with the Bad, and vice-versa.
Onto other topics:
I’m confused by Cythillia’s appearances in panel 4 vs. those in 5, 6, and 7. In Panel 4, he has a “blank” blue face with a gem on the top of his forehead. In the later panels, we’ve got head wrappings and bandit mask, both in tan.
Or… are we looking at *TWO* members of Deus’ security, with Cythillia only being one of them?
I think it is two. My guess is the one on the balcony is providing invisibility (possibly more) for the other, until Deus wants something to happen. Then the balcony one drops the invisibility so that the other one can attack.
I don’t think you used the word “abdicate” correctly :(
Verbing nouns is a common business practice. So is eliminating potential back-stabbers. Deus goes large in everything he does.
Strictly and technically speaking, no, DaveB/Deus’ use is not correct.
However, it’s used creatively here for the purpose of being witty and succinct. I suppose the grammatically more correct dialogue would instead go something like, “Cythillia, would you kindly convince the king to abdicate?” The incorrect grammar use here is instead dramatic and punchier.
I’d give it a pass for that. In any case, any living language evolves and grows, with terms finding new meaning and uses. This may horrify purists, but I’m in favor of some leeway for the purpose of clarity and wit.
Yes, it’s well in character. Just as long as he keeps away from horrors like “re-architecting”. There are limits…
Actually, “abdicate” can be used in this way, much as “retire” could, although it is archaic and largely obsolete. However, Deus seems to enjoy using erudite wording in an attempt to either confound his conversant or appear superior thereto.
He’s also making sure that all the mooks understand what happened. The King abdicated. Ab-di-ca-ted. He did *not* have his heart imploded by a superher… by a supervill… by a NPC.
Also: if I was running Deus in a game with alignments my GM would be asking me how I’d reconcile this with being Neutral Good, and I’d be pointing out to her that the Lawful Evil warlord refused to take my peaceful and objectively Good deal, then actively threatened me, but even then I went for the softer option of ordering my NPC to ‘abdicate’ the king instead of using my [POWER REDACTED] combat attack. It’s not MY fault if the GM interpreted ‘abdicate’ to mean ‘kill,’ despite the fact that dead kings cannot abdicate, so the only alignment check that the GM needs to make here would be a self-diagnostic.
And any halfway competent GM would instantly slap you with a Lawful Evil alignment simply for resorting to that level of justification.
The further you go to justify your actions, the more obvious it becomes that you’re not good.
Pfft, I DM all the time and I’d slap him with an LG alignment with that explanation, but if he tweaked it, then I’d go CG. However, neutral good is an alignment that is mostly best explained by pointing at someone like Mister Rogers… It’s just not an alignment where it’s easy to justify fighting at all. It is the epitome of goodness, and any time you justify combat, there’s almost always something else you can do that would be more good than fighting.
The trouble here is that you have too ‘easy’ a definition of Good.
Good isn’t ‘live and let live’- it’s ‘actively help others be better’- There’s no way that Deus, in this situation, with this reaction, would be able to hold/justify a “Good” alignment of any sort. The question is only whether he’s ‘good’ enough to be Neutral, instead of Evil.
Fairly sure, in this situation, Deus is ‘actively helping others be better’, but Indinge is opposing that and flat-out stated that he wants the thick end of the money wedge and will not change (we have already seen that he is willing to wage a war to have his own country, so simply kicking him out and putting Junior in place won’t work)
I never said it was live and let live. It’s altruism. Deus isn’t demonstrating that of course, but I wasn’t arguing that Deus is good. I was arguing that Deus is committing a good act with neutral intentions (make money). Killing a dictator who is murdering thousands, stealing from thousands, rendering thousands homeless and further killing them because of famine and lack of medical care is unarguably good. Indinge forfeited his right to life by being such.
If anything, the fact that Deus tried to work with Indinge at all in the first place is the biggest indicator that Deus isn’t good.
I’d argue that Mr. Rogers was the epitome of a gentle Chaotic Good–his focus was on You as an individual, on Your self-discovery, self-development, self-control and self-esteem. He wanted You to be happy “just being You” and to be “the best You You can be”… Very little of the collective/Lawful about him.
…and a very happy tomorrow to you, neighbor!
Looks to me like Deus has at least two different supers in his “private security force”, the first one up on the balcony in the blue cloak and mask who seems to me to be the one who kept him or herself and the second one hidden from view and Mr Tactical Mummy (well, he’s all wrapped up and he’s wearing what looks like some sort of military-inspired gear), aka the second one, who seems to be the one to induce a heart attack or somesuch in Indinge. As for how they stayed hidden, some sort of invisibility, maybe due to Bluecloak bending light or something like that (what with the glowy rays of light emenating from his mask gem when the two are revealed).
“Winners write the history books”. Which is why Nazi Germany was the bad guy & US was the good guy. Not that I’m saying the Nazi’s were in any moral way anywhere close to good, but morality is always a value judgement. And the “greater good” argument is a VERY slippery slope
Yes, the Allies did some damn stinky things as well, but as the ‘victors’ they get to edit the history books and leave those things out (people go on about the Concentration Camps, either ignoring or never knowing the truth that it was the British who invented the damn things during the Boer War in South Africa. You didn’t know that? Well guess who won that war {will give you a hint, it wasn’t the Boer})
A lot of Nazi ideology was actually based on the Eugenics Movement of the US, which advocated sterilizing “undesirables” to prevent them from reproducing.
Not to mention the rampant anti-semitism in America, and the internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Granted they weren’t Death Camps, but still.
yet…
if the war would have turned badly for the US it MAY have come down to that extreme… i’m glad it didn’t though.
Fortunately for the Allies then
Oh, and how many people knew about the concentration camps in the UK (can’t remember if they were in Ireland or Scotland) during WW2nd?
“Assassination is the highest form of public service.” – Chun
Remo Williams, the Adventure Begins
In the books Chun was the sole support of his village. Keeping his people fed was his public service. The rest of the world was customers and targets, interchangeably.
Chuin. There’s an “i” in there, as I recall?
Chiun, actually.
In the Destroyer continuity, the master of Sinanju’s name was originally Nuihc, but he changed it to distance himself from his second apprentice, and nephew who went rogue.
The ‘kill less to save more” solution only works in isolation. Fate:Zero illustrates this fairly well – the protagonist follows the “kill 1 to save 10, kill 10 to save 100” route throughout the series. Then, at the end, one of the ‘big-bad’s proposes a hypothetical scenario in which such choices are chained – so, after the third iteration more people have been killed than saved overall, and more people would have been saved by killing the majority in the fist iteration & ending the cycle
Unless the cycle would continue anyway.
Or… not having the cycle in the first place. The big-bad just gave you a Hannibal Lecture and you bought it. Ignore the hypothetical situation and guess what? You still saved more people by killing less OUT of isolation.
Not to mention, any situation where killing less people HAS to lead to more deaths overall was deliberately set up that way in the first place and very unrealistic.
This is an old saw, because it sounds terrible, but is actually just the way life works: everybody dies eventually. The way to prevent the most deaths in the long term is to kill off everyone to stop people from being born.
Morality isn’t numbers-based, or it shouldn’t be. Morality is rights-based and intentions-based: if you make your choices in answer to the question “what is the best result for my personal success I can achieve that respects the rights and dignity of other people?” then most moral quandaries just become a question of what rights others have, which is a matter of law. People tend to get very caught up in results, but being moral doesn’t require you to be a fortune teller – in fact, trying to be a fortune teller is usually the first step in ceasing to be moral, because you start buying into the idea of the ends justifying the means.
Is he died? Not absolutely sure he’s dead maybe just incapacitated> Deus did say his health took a sharp downturn not that he died. And I doubt the son would cooperate with his father’s murderer. I think he might be down for the count though and a hostage to fortune for his son.
Depends on the strength of his son’s self preservation instinct.
“Obey me and live, or resist and die like your father. ”
Pretty compelling argument if you ask me.
I would argue that foresight does not equal intelligence, only analysis and time to do said analysis. The “I was prepared for that” card is pulled to imply intelligence without actually demonstrating it when a write needs to show off. There is no LOGICAL reason batman would have a space suit on his belt. With all of the money and time it would take to make a portable spacesuit, how often does he end up in space before he needs it? “Ahh, but Batman is smart, so he plans ahead!” By that logic, Bruce Wayne she already realize he cannot fix gotham one moron criminal at a time, retired the bat, and turned his mind to warping the law to serve that purpose, or gone full mad scientist if he feels that the idea of freedom is not worth the cost of suffering and FORCE them to comply with his morals.
To be fair, Batman ends up in space pretty dang often.
Yeah, he does NOW, but what about the first time?
Bat anti-space repellent? Bat explosive-decompression cream? Bat oxygen gum?
You know it’s in the utility belt, now all you have to do is name it.
Much of the author’s argument is well written. I will point out a common flaw. Nearly everyone pulls the old “Paladin kills things” aegument. It just isn’t valid to use. The reason is: in that gaming system (any of them built on d20), alignment is an absolute. It is a mechanic of the game. Good knows ur is good, and evil knows it is evil, and they are both fine with that. Morality in that case is not an internal judgement call, but an external one, so, in the game, the bandit is evil, because he does evil acts.
If the Paladin killed him, it would be a good act. This cannot apply to real life, of course. We all want, supposedly, gray areas and relative morality. Ok. That’s fine, but don’t use bananas in your arguments to prove that apples are better than oranges.
Thorin Schmidt gamer geek.
Debatable. Paladins can commit evil actions if they work too zealously or let themselves get blinded to the consequences of their actions. They’re usually punished severely for doing so, but they can still do it. It’s way too easy to fall prey to the textbook paladin where everything you do is righteous and holy, every time always. They will make mistakes, and have mechanics in place in most editions of D&D to atone for that.
Absolute evil isn’t necessarily represented well in the scaling system. Neutral characters can do evil actions just as well as they can do good ones – and good characters can do terrible things “for the right reasons”. The paladin has to look at every person, and every action, and judge it on their own merits, and in the confines of their own patron deity’s priorities. A conquerer who tears across the world demolishing kingdoms to build their own empire could be seen as wrong by some paladins, and perfectly acceptable by others so long as certain other things are upheld or not resorted to. The best campaigns, and the best characters, are the ones where they use the absolutes of alignment as a framework, and work within them. I’ve played paladins that worked with tyrants, because there was no better options – the logic was that any of their subordinates that would take up the reigns after smiting the king would be worse at ruling, and thus their innocent subjects would suffer. Destroying the entire regime was too far out of the scope of what could be done. Killing the monster on the throne would, therefore, have been a “righteous” act, but not necessarily a “good” one. A poorly played paladin – the vast majority of them, I feel the need to point out – get totally hung up on their crusading and righteousness, and ignore consequences. Always stab everything and anything that’s even vaguely evil because evil is bad and good is not. They’re not fun to deal with.
Take another example; I once played a lawful good cleric of a healing/sympathy sort of goddess. The character ended up in a downright tyrannical, oppressive, conquering state in the middle of a war. They considered it, thought about taking sides, and ended up going with the tyranny, helping heal their soldiers. Why? Because they were the stronger force and with a little extra push the war could be over faster, and fewer people would be suffering because of it. Doing good furthered evil, but helped impose order over chaos. If they’d joined up with the nicer, friendlier city, the war would drag on and on, because they didn’t have the will or the means to end it decisively, more civilians would end up being hurt, more property and livelihoods damaged or destroyed, more fields turned into warzones that couldn’t feed people for the coming winter.. it was the long view of it all that they went with. A smart, adaptable DM will roll with your decisions like that and edit the campaign to work with it instead of you going the stereotypical helping the good guys thing. Just like they’ll punish a paladin who rushes to put evil to the sword with no regard of the consequences.
Even in D&D and other roleplaying games, tabletop or otherwise, morality being boiled down to black and white good versus evil.. well, it’s boring. The Lawful/Chaos, Good/Evil scales are framework. They’re there to guide you as your character’s general leanings, not railroad you into archetypes. Paladins have immense depth available to them, but too often they get treated to the same, tired crusader role.
Just a point, but you are curtailing your thinking to the length of the war, and thus not thinking it all through correctly. By definition, an Evil government will, in time (and that was the point you were making about looking at things long term), do more harm/evil than the ‘Good’ rebels in this case. Their natures will make the difference in the long term (and I mean much longer term than simply the war you mentioned).
Not necessarily. If you put a decision like that in historical context, evil empires tend to become less evil over time. Stabilizing a region is the first step towards lasting “good”. Which isn’t really a shock, considering that stable regions offer fewer opportunities for the really dark gray morality (of the sort discussed in conversations like this) to be tempting.
A good (relatively speaking :P) example of a Holy Paladin doing unspeakably, and unquestionably, Evil acts and remaining a full Paladin can be seen in “The Goblins” with that dwarf paladin, far too many examples to list so just read the webic for yourself (if you haven’t already)
One question that still comes up is ‘How does he remain a Paladin?’
Because I’m having problems seeing that one. The dude does all kinds of hideously awful things, including murdering children on the idea that ‘hey, someday that kid might grow up and kill people’ as well as killing clerics of good alignment when they seek to bar his path from his targets.
I’m thinking there’s a lot more to that situation than him getting the Okay! stamp from his god. :)
Completely depends on his god, don’t it? Could simply be he’s worshiping an asshole god that likes to present his actions as good.
“…murdering children on the idea that ‘hey, someday that kid might grow up and kill people’”
Paladins kill the young of orcs and goblins all the time, because they are defined as evil in the rulebook. For the sake of argument, I see no real difference between that and “getting the Okay! stamp from his god.” –also :)
Thats actually a bad example, since its directly a point of confusion inside the comic how he can be a paladin and do what he does. For that matter there isnt any evidence of him being a paladin, besides him calling himself one.
I believe he used Lay on Hands at least once – something only paladins can do in D&D. The simple explanation is that his god isn’t a nice entity, even if still on the ‘Good’ side of the alignment chart.
The point is ‘Holy’ is relative
I ventured a theory once that Kore himself or Herself is dead never committed a bad deed against the code, so the body is distinctly in the court of Lawful Good. However, the armor itself channeled enough divine magic through it or it was cursed so it became intelligent. Unfortunately, the armor itself is evil, but it has so much divine magic soaked through it it can channel the magic through the body inside to use what it has in it, along with using it as a skeleton so it can move.
Why does it hunt the “evil” races? Because it’s a sadist and the monster races aren’t organized while the PC races are more inclined to organize and stomp “Kore” easier.
Pretty sure a paladin looses all powers upon death. Stories of undead paladins notwithstanding, because in classic D&D all undead are ubiquitously evil. As interesting as your theory is, it doesn’t hold water given the setting.
Don’t use Goblins as any kind of example of relative morality. The author has set things up deliberately so that the monsters are the good guys and the PCs/PC races are the bad guys.
Since it is predetermined by the author it is a failed example.
Was using a specific case: a Holy Paladin doing unspeakably evil and yet remains a Paladin
D&D is a game predicated on the idea that it’s okay to go out, kill things, and take their stuff. Why? Because those things are ‘evil’ and you’re operating in defence of races/people that are ‘good’. This, without considering a more complex view of any situation where perhaps the GOOD people are the ones in the wrong.
Using D&D alignments/classes/situations as presented for a measuring stick with regards to real-world moral quandaries always feels a little off to me. It’s not this world, it’s a world where ‘kill the bad guys’ is considered a perfectly okay goto response to a bucketload of stuff where it wouldn’t apply in the real world. Some of that is due to it NOT being a big, comfortable democracy full of laws with a supreme governing order to deal with issues, some of that being due to it being a roleplaying game where the whole point SYSTEMWISE (not play-wise, some groups will not play this way, focusing more on RP and conflict resolution than choppy-choppy) is to gain levels and get good stuff so you can handle greater and greater threats. :)
Mileage may vary.
Plus, the alignment system has been redone so many times and is so open to interpretation that put 5 people in the same room and they’ll all have a different definition of any of the alignments. It’s at best a useful but shoddy shorthand for morality. At worst it can spark never-ending debates that grind a game to a halt or split up parties.
Which is also part of my point. Using a gaming reference of alignment, which is a game mechanic, to argue morality is like using a hammer to drive screws… It can be done, but the result is sloppy, messy, and the end product doesn’t hold together well. That was the entirety of my point.
I completely agree with you, good sir!
Good and evil are only in the perceptions of those who define it.
Just a little food for thought, there, because so many people see the world as something that should be black and white, when there are SOOO many gray areas to consider.
To be honest, good and evil are NOT usually useful concepts.
In real life there’s basically agreeable/meh/tolerable/intolerable actions, based on who views them, what power sed person has to intervene and what risks are involved.
“They have flashes of brilliance but no long game”
And then, you have Xanatos.
Xanatos doesn’t really play “long game” so much as he stacks the deck so absurdly in his favor that even when he loses he wins.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit As we all know ^_^
Deus is so cool and intimidating. I forgot what dilema it’s called (prisoner’s dilema?), but he makes me want to side with him, even though he’s a bad guy. *does not understand self*
And admittedly, I had to google what abdicate meant. If I was Cthilla, I would have just stood there and scratched my head in a clueless fashion. :P
Unless you’re negatively affected by his actions, it doesn’t count as Stockholm’s (prisoner dilemma doesn’t apply here). Deus is arguably the lesser of two ‘evils’ here, so I don’t see why you’re surprised you’re siding with him – I certainly am. The king is a warlord that’s obviously not able to provide for the people as well as we know Deus will be able to. If murder has to be committed to get us there more expediently, so be it – especially the murder of someone that has plenty of innocent blood on their hands (warlords don’t get their position by kissing babies and petting kittens).
Ah yes – Stockholm’s Syndrome. Though you’re right – that’s not the right term for this moment.
I believe I bundled him into the evil/’warning: do not side with’ part because he wasn’t part of the good guys. He’s a funny lovable, ‘bad guy’, I suppose. Movies have taught me that anyone who doesn’t initially share the screen with the good guys is very possibly a bad guy.
V’s also got me siding with him. Intimidating and smart. I can find myself just standing there wondering if he wants to be friends with me. Kinda like a big brother, if I ever had one. Ah heck, I’m too sappy today…
Prisoner’s Dilemma and Stockholm Syndrome are not related. Prisoner’s Dilemma is a game theory construct where you have two prisoners who can betray each other or remain loyal, with varying results:
2 Loyal = no change in status
2 Betrayal = both executed
1 Betrays 1 is Loyal = betrayer gets released, loyalist gets executed.
I don’t think the dilemma Deus is proposing really has a name. Hobson’s choice (“take it or leave it”) is kinda similar, except it’s more “take it or die”. Maybe you could call it the Mafia’s Dilemma or something.
It’s not so much a dilemma as a trope–specifically, Affably Evil. (In the interests of the GDP, I shan’t link. You know how to find it from that if you want to.) Making the bad guy be someone who seems a bit fun and goofy makes it much more serious when he finally decides to shoot the dog.
Who or what is Cthillia?
That is something we will just have to wait and find out, together :D
Loving this bit, I must say. I wasn’t sure if I was going to like Deus, based on his first appearance, but this has been extremely interesting! I think he’s going to be a great antagonist (and probably occasional protagonist) going forward! It’s like Xanatos and Lex Luthor had a baby, and I’m already mentally composing the slashfic.
As to the morality thing…I’m not a big believer in shades of gray. I don’t much ascribe to the ‘balanced scales’ view of good/evil, where one can say “This deed took X units of evil to perform, but Y units of good resulted… Y > X…therefore it was good!”
And evil deed is an evil deed, a good deed is a good deed (the vast majority of deeds the average person performs in a day aren’t really good or evil to any particular degree) and the actual consequences don’t change that. Now, the real world is what it is, and if I had to kill one person to save a thousand others…hell, five others…two others, maybe, I probably would. And saving those thousand, hundred, five, whatever, would be great and all…but killing the one would still be bad.
And to my mind, this view is a bit of a reality check. If an evil act is always evil, regardless of circumstance, I feel like that would make one think long and hard about whether committing an evil act was justified. Take Indinge Sr. up there…with the sort of powers and resources one imagines Deus can bring to the table, he could just as easily fake his death and secretly imprison him in humane conditions forever. And, being an African warlord, one can only imagine that Indinge would deserve to be locked up.
But Deus would, at this moment, appear to be an ‘ends justify the means’ sort of guy. Which is true, for extreme examples. Kill one mass-murderer to save a few thousand people? Really a no-brainer. Kill one innocent person to save a few thousand people? Well, you’d feel bad about it, but really, you’d have to, wouldn’t you? But you’d still feel bad, and likely feel the need to atone, above and beyond the saved lives. And that’s the point. If you feel like an evil act is always evil, regardless of outcomes or circumstances, you won’t actually cross that line until there really is no other choice. If you feel like the good results of an evil act somehow make the act not evil, it becomes easier and easier to rationalize crossing that line again and again.
“And that’s the point. If you feel like an evil act is always evil, regardless of outcomes or circumstances, you won’t actually cross that line until there really is no other choice. If you feel like the good results of an evil act somehow make the act not evil, it becomes easier and easier to rationalize crossing that line again and again.”
I’m with you here, dude.
Deus is not coming off too well to me in this case, as a ‘good guy’.
Not to say he’s not a good character, because he is. And I like the character. I wouldn’t be friends with him, and he’s an evil dude, but…good character and interesting one.
It’s difficult enough to decide when the situation is totally unambiguous (as in the famous “trolley problem“), but even harder in the real world. For example, you could be wrong about some aspect of the situation, so it might be useless to kill the one person. Alternatively, you could be being actively deceived by some other party, to manipulate you into committing a murder.
…and on the gripping hand, you might have been given the opportunity to jump in front of the trolley yourself, thus saving the day without sacrificing anyone else, as the others are not yours to sacrifice.
Or wedge the switch between the two track selections so that it derails and everyone is spared.
I know that my choice in this situation would always be to look for the third option, and if I could not find one at least I’d know that I did everything I could to try to find one.
So. Very. True.
Well put. Both of the above.
Actually, the reason why things are ‘shades of grey’ is because very rarely is any thing (or one) simply ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (pre-New52 Superman doesn’t count :P) but made up of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ acts or deeds, not that the acts or deeds themselves are ‘grey’ but like one of those old-type comics made up of black dots on white paper they mix together to form an overall picture, and the only way to tell whether the picture is that of a happy smiling cherub (not cherubim) or a blood-drenched killer is by stepping back and looking at everything that makes up the picture
“a happy smiling cherub (not cherubim)”
Important distinction, well done. :)
“but like one of those old-type comics made up of black dots on white paper they mix together to form an overall picture,”
Even if I don’t completely agree with the point behind it, that’s a beautifully illustrative analogy. Kudos! ^^
But this falls into the whole point system thing I talked about above that I’m trying to avoid. A good overall outcome doesn’t make an evil act any less evil, or vice versa. I think part of the problem is that deep down people don’t like to think that the world is such a place that good people can be forced by circumstances to choose to commit an evil act, so it’s easier to rationalize the act as no longer being evil (if not really good) under those circumstances.
But hurting or killing someone is always bad, regardless of any other factors. And you can, in fact, be put in a terrible position where it’s really the only choice you can make. And you’re going to feel bad about it, and probably want to atone, above and beyond whatever good was accomplished, or greater evil averted, by what you did. And you should! Because you did do an evil thing. And feeling responsible for it will ensure that if you’re ever put in such a situation again, you’ll make sure that the evil act really is the only possible option.
Yes, and agree with you in that: an evil act is still an evil act, but an evil act alone does not make one Evil anymore than a good act makes one Good
No, I’m pretty sure the guy who just killed someone rather than taking the time to show he’s as good at making money as he says he is is evil.
His bank account says that.
Sometimes you no longer can continue the conversation with someone, and this someone was issuing death threats at the expense of the lives of thousands.
His bank account doesn’t say he’s got the resolve, the patience or the skills to fix an entire country. Here’s how the conversation could have gone:
“I’m going to fix your country for you, and make yourself, myself and your people richer than Bill Gates.”
“Yeah, big white man, I’ve heard that one before.”
“What can I do to prove to you what I’m saying?”
“Well, I need some roads here, clean water here and a whole bunch of schools. Let’s see if you can manage that to start with.”
“I’ll have it done next Thursday. See you.”
Or, if Deus is as clever as he says he is, he’d already know all this and do it before talking to the king. It’d probably take less bribe money than starting a diamond mine in Sierra Leone like the production team of Blood Diamond did. He could buy his way into being the cornerstone of the nation’s economy without ever needing to involve Indinge if that’s what he wanted.
But instead he went in with the plan “I’m giving the king one chance to do things my way, and if he finds any of my outrageous claims that I’m not backing up in any way hard to swallow I’ll kill him.” You probably don’t need to be a king to feel like not going along with that.
“But instead he went in with the plan “I’m giving the king one chance to do things my way, and if he finds any of my outrageous claims that I’m not backing up in any way hard to swallow I’ll kill him.” You probably don’t need to be a king to feel like not going along with that.”
Let’s not forget ‘Also, be insulting to the man and then when he tells me go – threats aside, the dude does have the right to say ‘Get out’ in his own country, corrupt as he might be – say no and kill him.’
Deus is smart. If he knew so much about the king, he would have known that chances are this wouldn’t work. And I can see that just by looking over the conversation.
He went in there with the idea of killing the king and taking over. The offer was just giving him deniability. “Hey, I gave him a great deal, it’s not my fault he was corrupt and stupid.”
“A great deal of self-aggrandizing promises, anyway.”
…..
Niiiiiice.
Indeed. Deus had all of that planned so that if the King went along, great. But he always knew the likelihood of that was minimal, and probably planned (given the insults or just his gand standing nature) that he’d kill the King, in a way no-one could prove was murder (by the looks of it), in front of his son, and then make the same offer to him, having demonstrated to those that count that he was not someone to be trifled with. By doing that, and by basically making his offers good for everyone in teh country, he basically makes a very hard offer to refuse.
Help me Improve your country with your permission making everyone’s lives better, or die where you stand (with no way to stop it happening in the future).
The very definition of an Evil Benevolent Dictator.
All of this, the death included, was planned… You don’t talk like this to the leader of a street gang, let alone a warlord, without expecting violence to erupt.
And yet, even then a show of super-force would have let Deus put Indenge in his pocket without any actual violence. A move halfway between between empty promises and murder i call “strongarming” But no one even knew he had backup.
Except, Indinge and his cronies would still be corrupt and skimming huge amounts of Deus’ money into their own pockets
He’s not going to run out of money before making clear that he knows what he’s doing and it’s working for everyone, if indeed he has any such foolproof plans, so why does it matter?
That works fine, if the King says “Well, I need some roads here, clean water here and a whole bunch of schools. Let’s see if you can manage that to start with.”.
But this King said “If you wish to contribute directly to my war effort, then we can discuss further opportunities for your businesses.”- basically ‘give me money to destroy more things with and kill more people with, first’.
That is after Deus fails to convince him to do everything he asks immediately no questions asked and backpedals to “let’s start small” and manages to make it sound really condescending, of course. But it’s not the details of what Indenge asks that matters; it matters that Deus doesn’t listen to him at all.
And since he was right in the middle of that effort when he was threatened with being shot and then ordered to be “thrown from the” (whatever it was going to be, it doesn’t sound friendly. I’m fairly certain it was not going to be “Thrown from the burning building onto the pile of feather mattresses in order to save his life!”), I’m pretty sure that killing in self-defense is not an evil act.
You’re really misconstruing the timeline. He was told to leave or get shot, not, “Okay, that’s it, shoot him, men.” And the attempt to order his men to defenestrate Deus only comes after Deus gives a verbal order to ‘abdicate’ the king–an obvious threat to take him out of power, if not outright kill him. Deus is flat-out villaining here. (Try, as a civilian, to get a meeting with the POTUS, lay out your grand plan, and then, when he refuses, give an order to an unseen individual to “Impeach him”. You’ll be lucky if the Secret Service only tackles you and throws you out the back door.)
Deus couldn’t even be bothered to go to one of the fifteen other third world hellholes that are currently ruled over by despots to try and make his pitch to one of them instead.
That’s still a threat, and I believe technically assault in the US. Of course, he wasn’t in the US, and so perhaps he is simply operating under the laws of ex-kingly’s country. :)
Still an effort that was never going to work. You cant actually convince a person that you’re going to save their country by talking; you usually have to show that you mean business. What would be wrong with doing some of the things he promises to do first and then building up to the big unprecedented unbeliveable-until-you-see-it-happening swiftly-turning-the-whole-country-around effort, like I outlined above?
Because as he pointed out, every level of that government was corrupt. It’s hard to prove the little things when every time you turn around, they’re flat out stealing money to line their pockets. As Deus said, another vacation palace is not infrastructure. And there is no doubt Indinge would have done just that.
For the country to flourish, the warlord had to be removed.
Hard, yes, but it would work. Start hiring people to build roads, pay officials reasonable bribes, everyone gets happy. If they demand unreasonable bribes you can use your support with the people, your considerable rhetoric skill or your superpowered death squad to keep them in line, and if they escalate to trying to get rid of you, then you get rid of them. Deus just thinks he’s so clever he shouldn’t have to do things the hard way.
No, impossible. These are criminals. They aren’t some small time thugs in a back alley, these are cocky, arrogant killers in their territory. They don’t care about what the people think. And if you aren’t willing to use your superpowered death squad the moment they push matters they will keep pushing.
When you have men in that situation, the only thing they truly understand is force. Especially when you offer (no matter how sincere) to help with the infrastructure and they demand you put the money into their war chest.
Indinge was a bad man that would never have allowed any work towards infrastructure to work.
Okay, if you decide it’s impossible to do anything without killing the bad people first I guess you have to kill the bad people.
Considering the history of African Warlords, you do have to get rid of them. Let’s say you build them a new school for the people. You find a way to protect the money and you put in a school. All of a sudden the military needs a new building and since it’s signed over to the government, which would have to happen, suddenly that school is a new military base.
America and several countries send medical aid and food to the starving people. You know what happens? It gets taken by the warlords every damn time and given to themselves and their men. Nothing works in Africa without going through the Warlords who don’t give three shits about their own people except as slave labor.
The Warlords in the real world, and since Indinge is showing signs of being a classic Warlord, here too, are not just horrible people, they are obstructionists. They survive off the bones of their people. Admittedly, in real life it’s a bit too complicated to do something about it ourselves, in fiction land, something is being done. I’ve seen your posts, I’ve read and thought about them. You want to see the positive of the Warlord Indinge. It’s an admirable trait. But as real world Warlords have shown, they will not budge an inch unless forced.
There’s been maybe one that’s decided to give into his humanity, Joshua Milton Blahyi, also known as General Butt Naked. He was in the Liberian army under Roosevelt Johnson. He was known for violence and atrocities. Then he turned to God and gave up the life. But that is one case. One single case. Could it happen again? Perhaps, but if the cost of trying to redeem one man so he’ll fix his own country is to watch the people suffer in squalor and die pointlessly, I say kill him, his men, and bring in someone that even if they have other motives will still change things for the best. Some men don’t deserve redemption. That’s not me being cynical, that’s me being pragmatic.
You got me wrong, I don’t care about how nice or bad Ingene is, I am considering the possibility that Deus could have avoided killing him. Or the possibilities, as we have found about twenty of them so far.
All right, but the biggest problem I see with one of your plans is just doing it. That might actually offend Indinge, it’s a message that he doesn’t get a say in what happens in his own country. And considering he got it through violence, that’s not going to work.
You give him a show of power. All right, that works until he pushes again and you give him another show of power without harming him. If a third time happens and you don’t use the power on him, that breaks that power and control.
You use the people’s gratitude for power, he doesn’t care about the people’s gratitude.
You give him a school or hospital, he takes it for himself to only benefit himself. And you had to spend double because he keeps taking money for himself.
On and on, any peaceful means has a weakness that makes the whole thing fall apart. I don’t mind peaceful resolutions. When someone can talk to solve the issue, that works that’s wonderful. Violence is not always the answer. But, sometimes, one must treat violence as a scalpel to cut out an infection. This was one of those times.
Well, since it turned out he didn’t actually kill the king, I’d say it was in fact not one of those times. But in this scenario where you kill the guy, how would you know you could not avoid killing him before you tried?
Deus had already offered more than reasonable bribes. He flat out told Indigo-girl that he would be made one of the wealthiest men in Africa. That wasn’t enough for the petty dictator, and so now he is being shown the stick instead of the carrot.
I have no sympathy for Indigo-girl, and hold Deus in no less regard due to this exchange of negotiations.
Do you understand that Ingene had no reason to believe Deus’ ridiculous promises?
If you want to cut in line at the bank, do you give people five dollar bills or do you promise them a million dollars?
I love Deus. Seriously. I want to watch him go on adventures.
Also loving your point about intelligent characters.
The one power you have over Deus as a writer is crowdsourcing.
Get a bunch of really smart people together and decide what hed do as a group.
Another is potentially time, Deus has to make a decision at a moments notice? Take an hour to think it out. Course thats only if hes a quick thinker and not a slow plotter. Takes all types of intelligence in this world.
This is seriously good advice- talk to people, look over the Evil Overlord List, trawl the comments section for the essays on what people here would do… Time and consideration can make up for a lack of raw intelligence, in writing. It helps that you can determine the situations around which the character must plan, doing a sort of ‘inverse intelligence’ thing where you make an intelligent-seeming plan, and fitting the situation to it instead of the other way around. Gotta be careful to balance that sort of thing, though.
Also, read the first couple Artemis Fowl books a few times, maybe some of the good fanfic (Vathara has a great AF/Avengers crossover fic)- read Sherlock Holmes and pay attention to both Holmes, Moriarty and Mycroft, all those sorts of things.
It always pays to have a highly skilled assassin on you’re payroll, someone like that would no doubt be well compensated to make such messy problems easily fixed.
I’ve heard several successful authors discussing the topic of writing intelligent characters. They concluded that it is generally not a problem, since the author has some unfair advantages. The author can think for weeks or months over the course of writing a book on what the most brilliant thing the character can do in a split-second’s thought could be. Plus, the author controls the universe, which allows them to arrange things just right so the character can look brilliant.
Now, the webcomic format gives you far less lead time than an author has, but Deus can still wind up looking pretty smart in action, I bet.
Not really… There are solutions that may not occur to you no matter how long you think, but someone with a different perspective might get within seconds. Plus, does your ‘intelligent character’ just have a high IQ, or do they have vast hoards of knowledge to go with it?
The classic example is thus: You are in a room, 5 meters square. There is a 1’x2′ open window one meter off the floor of the wall opposite you, and your back is against the closed door. The key is in the outside of the lock. There is a lion between you and the window. Other than your clothes, the only items you have are a bucket of water, a flashlight, a paintbrush, and 70cm of rope. Survive.
open the door, leave, and lock it behind you
I prefer the old “You have a hammer, a box of tacks, and a candle (and a wall- drywall, normal house wall). Mount the candle to the wall.
The common answer is to empty the box of tacks, tack it to the wall, and put the candle in the box.
My answer was to slam the hammer into the wall and put the candle on top of it.
Another person might construct some sort of cantelevered rig out of the tacks, to hold the candle.
Or, with info you don’t have, the tacks might be long enough, and the wax of the candle soft enough, that you can just tack it right to the wall.
All sorts of different answers, some of which people just don’t think of after they’ve gotten one.
4 tacks, partially stuck in. Hang hammer on tacks. Stick candle on hammer.
Hrm.
I would say Deus is a pragmatic psychopath with a flair for the dramatic. That is neither good nor evil, just an estimate of his behavior. He is a corporate CEO, meaning there’s a 40% chance that he’s a psychopath anyway. He has a high (rather justified) opinion of himself and this demonstrates that he has no problem simply eliminating somebody who is standing in the way of obvious progress.
I’ve done study on Zaire/DRC. For the bulk of its existence, it has been a war zone. Even now, it teeters on the brink of another civil war, with the people’s opinion of their “president” being a low one. One wrong word and bullets will fly, that’s how on the razor’s edge they are, with the African Union poised to shut the whole mess down if they have to.
So, of course a CEO looking to improve the region, even in this alternate Earth, he would have done his research. His investigators know for a fact that they’re dealing with corrupt individuals who wouldn’t bat an eye at stealing the money he’s offering, lining their pockets and building themselves even more heinous palaces of lucre. Of course he knows they’ll invest in more guns and drugs rather than try to build the schools, roads and hospitals he’s recommending.
And of course, he knows that if he cannot convince them to do as he recommends, his life will be on the line. So, having an armed and/or empowered escort is not only prudent, it’s pragmatic. Couple this with a refusal to accept “No” for an answer, especially when it’s received over something as small as “insulting him with FACTS,” then assassination is on the table. Frankly, Indinge was just another hotheaded blowhard, latest in a long line of hotheaded blowhards, the same kinds of hotheaded blowhards who’ve made Africa such a miserable place since the Colonial Age, and his death shouldn’t have been seen as surprising, by the audience or the characters.
And there are plenty of people who would see something like this as a perfectly reasonable action.
Frankly, I see Deus as being like Lex Luthor, but without the “I’m better than you, and I can prove it!” hang-ups. He thinks out his plans carefully, working hard to consider all of the contingencies rather than going “This is so genius, and I’m so perfect, I don’t need a backup!” In fact, Deus recognizing that no situation is perfect could make him far more dangerous. It’s like reverse Batman, a contingency for every hero…
Except Sydney, because she’s chaos bundled into an 80 lbs. form…
So what you’re saying is:
Deus = evil Batman
Sydney = good Joker
I like the sound of this :-D
SO, did the Southwest Bake. I had to make some adjustments due to local (South Carolina) product availability, but it was delish! I ended up using 2 cans of your basic Armour chili and it did not need thickening, but the cornbread mix I used did not want to finish cooking. I recommend defrosting the veggies first.
I think you meant to post that in TMI’s comments. But that recipe does sound good.
Can people please learn/remember the term/label “Anti-Hero”, Please!
Care to teach the class what it means? Please?
I have always maintained that the essense of evil is selfishness. Selfishness in and of itself is not evil, as none of the fundamental characteristics of the Seven Deadly Sins are; what makes it evil is carrying it to the point that others don’t matter. Stealing to feed your family? Not evil, by my standards. Stealing a guy’s really cool sneakers and stabbing him because he wouldn’t give them up? Definitely evil. Killing a corrupt warlord because he won’t go with your program? At the risk of skirting Godwin’s Law, remember that the Italians used to boast about how proud they were that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Deus is evil, no question. That does not mean that many will not be better off as a result of his actions, but he doesn’t really care, as long as his goals are achieved. No matter how many bugs he has to squish.
Incidentally, the question of should smaller numbers be sacrificed so that greater numbers might be saved has real-world implications. It is being debated as part of the fundamental programming for self-driving cars. If a situation arises so that there is no way to avoid an accident, should the car plow into the larger number of strangers to save the smaller number of passengers in the car, or crash the car to save the strangers at the cost of the passengers? It might act as the “driver” would have decided to in the situation, but the fact remains that the Spam-in-a-can will live or die as the result of a faceless programmer’s decision made long ago and far away.
You’re a wordy little fella, aint’cha.
It’s a dirty job, but SOMEbody’s gotta do it. Besides, saying “Deus is evil. Deal.” does not adequately express what I wanted to say. And now you know to be wary of riding in a self-driving car…
Rather liked the post, myself. :D
I heard that self-driving cars (as they exist now) have higher accident rates than expected, because they are unable to adjust to the behaviour of human drivers. For example, it’s more difficult to filter into a lane of traffic that’s mostly exceeding the speed limit, if you stick rigidly to the limit yourself.
For the designer to protest “but they shouldn’t be doing that!” is no help.
Yeah, self-driving cars make me nervous. The real world is full of stuff and mixtures of situations with which current programming would likely have serious problems.
Not to say that real people would automatically do better, or would be better drivers, but.
Also, I wonder where liability would lie?
Until self-driving cars become self-learning and semi-aware, they will always be a danger (even if you remove all ‘regular’ forms of vehicles)
Self-driving cars are the safest cars in a world where all cars self-drive. Its the transitionary period which will be the most dangerous, and the most difficult to deal with. Once all the cars can communicate with each other, and predict where others are going with near-perfect accuracy, accident rates will go way, way down.
Not to mention, are the ‘higher than expected’ accident rates sill lower than those of regular cars? Because that’s the sort of distinction that newspaper headlines are made of.
I got curious, so I looked this up. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/ It seems that the accident rate is five times that of regular human driven cars. However, they used a pool of 50 cars. This is highly unscientific and I do not accept this as a reliable discovery. Call me when you look at a pool of at the very least 20% of the the cars on the road, both self driven and human driven.
And I’m one of these guys that does not trust self driven cars. Mainly because I have an issue with the concept of Artificial Intelligence. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Preach it.
^_^
In the abstract, the questions posed in the author’s comments are not actually hard to answer, though there are those who disagree with me. To me, it’s about innocence and culpability. It is morally acceptable to kill those who would otherwise be the willful cause of loss of innocent life. That is, killing in defense of others or yourself, when you’re killing the person who is trying to be the cause of death (or grievous harm) to those you are defending, is morally acceptable. The would-be killers forsook their right to their own lives by willfully targeting innocents.
It is also important to note that this only applies when defending people who are not, themselves, actively seeking to be the cause of death to other innocents. “He attacked me when I was about to kill his family, so it was okay that I killed him,” is not a moral justification (assuming his family wasn’t also out to kill you at the time).
In Deus’s case, he’s not acting GOOD. He is performing an evil act in his out-and-out conquest of this nation via assassination. In D&D alignment terms, however, I’d say he’s Neutral overall, at least in terms of this sequence. His motives are selfish, but he sought the most mutually advantageous approach first, actively seeks to better the lives of the majority of the people in the nation and, importantly, to do so not in the “my will and iron grip is better than their free will” sort of way, and only resorted to surgical violence and assassination to force his control. He clearly doesn’t relish it, and even views it as less desirable. It’s more than implied that he’s willing to tolerate a certain level of corruption in the form of simply buying off the next-to-useless (to his plans) rulers for permission, rather than resorting immediately to violent removal of opposition.
This doesn’t rule out him being evil, by any means. But an argument could be made for neutrality on the moral axis, by D&D standards. What else he is willing to do, and how much he actually cares about avoiding causing harm where it is not essential to his ends (and where he is willing to give up on his goals to avoid causing harm to innocents) will be telling.
Well…
I agree with your assessment of the situation and the moral groundwork you detailed… except when you list his act as ‘evil’ (“He is performing an evil act”).
I disagree that killing is fundamentally evil if the person you’re killing is a vile human/other being – and from the little information we have, the king got to his position by being and presumably acting as a warlord, meaning his hands are soiled with innocent blood. That, to me, makes him an acceptable target for assassination if the intent is to benefit the people he abused – even if tangentially.
“He is performing an evil act in his out-and-out conquest of this nation via assassination. In D&D alignment terms, however, I’d say he’s Neutral overall, at least in terms of this sequence.”
In 1st edition, at least, Assassination is inherently evil and, as an act, can only be performed by the evil-aligned (James Bond would be Lawful Evil, at least according to several Dragon articles…)
–Old School Gamer
“In 1st edition, at least, Assassination is inherently evil” – Precisely the problem (one of many, really) with 1st edition D&D.
Or maybe, one of the more realistic aspects of 1e, being based upon medieval Europe, where assassination of a monarch (regicide) is both illegal and theologically defined as evil, as it upsets a divinely ordained order..