All evil can be forgiven and redeemed

> All evil can be forgiven and redeemed.

> All evil must be destroyed.

Are they both CG Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes.

No, neither is chaotic good. Daredevil is more true good leaning Lawful good due to his dedication to mercy.

The punisher is at best lawful neutral due to his strict adherence to a simple code.

The actual answer is that morality is much more complicated than alignment can allow and your question is stupid.

>The actual answer is that morality is much more complicated than alignment can allow and your question is stupid.

To be fair, that's because DnD alignment is stupid. OP can't be blamed for that.

>The Punisher
>Good

The guy guns people down in the street simply for having connections to bad people. His murder spree reached almost three dozen before you actually saw his face in the TV show.

He doesn't give a shit about saving people or even really fixing society. He just removes criminal. That's Neutral at best.

But as said you can't really give either of them an Alignment.

Mercy isn't lawful. Mercy is a construct of chaos.

Mercy that stems from compassion is Good.

Mercy that stems from pragmatism (i.e killing someone would cause too much trouble) is of no alignment.

Mercy is only chaotic when it's in direct conflict with law, e.g a death sentence is lifted, an oath to kill someone is broken, etc. However, even then laws and codes often make provision for mercy to be given by an appropriate authority.

>AD&D
Daredevil would be LG or NG, since LG is about helping everyone, even people you don't like, while NG is about helping out the most you can while being judgmental about it.

Punisher would be LE or NE, as while he cares about maintaining order for the people he deems 'innocent' he is a murderous psychopath. The only reason he's not CN or CE is because Chaotic alignments are restricted for those who are all about personal freedom and actively rebel against authority.

>Mercy is a construct of chaos.
Edgy.

all protagonists are chaotic good

I'd say NE fits Frank the best for most portrayals. Maybe LE depending on the writer.

Opposing Evil does not automatically make someone Good. Especially when their methods are just as bad and have just as negative affect on society as the people they fight.

His actions aren't motivated by any kind of altruism or even an interest in making things "right". And his methods reflect that.

Mercy, by definition, is unjust. Mercy is the act of giving someone something they don't deserve, and is a form of theft. You are further damaging the rights of the victims of crime when criminals are treated better than they deserve to be treated.

I'M SO SICK OF CHAOSFAGS GETTING THEIR FINGERS INTO EVERYTHING.

>psychopath
Once you know what this word actually means, it's annoying to see people just throwing it around.
Psychopaths find it very difficult to form real love an relationships with people, and lack empathy. Show Punisher is easy to identify as not being a psychopath clearly by the way he talks about his wife and children, and the nature of his justification about why he does what he's doing. A psychopath wouldn't have that "penny and dime" mantra he has.

Cuteness is justice, so, showing mercy to a cute girl or a cute boy, is justice.

Eh that could go several ways. Just because he once had that ability doesn't mean he's still capable of it. The show makes it pretty clear he's damaged goods now. A lot of what he does after he lost his family in the show matches up with typical violent psychopath behavior.

That said I'm not a mental health professional so I can't really diagnose Frank.

Yeah, I figured you'd make this retarded argument.

Go back and answer the point I made about many law systems having provision for granting mercy.

And if you're just ranting like some edgelord lawfag then let me say "fuck off" in advance.

Saying the punisher is anything Evil is like saying Paladins are Evil for smiting evil all the time.

Just because you fight Evil does not make you Good. Not to mention that the stereotypical smitebot Paladin really would not be considered Lawful Good because they refuse to even try diplomacy, redemption, or rehabilitation, not to mention a complete and total disregard for collateral damage. They just go straight to bloodshed. They'd be Lawful Neutral at best.

I think the thing that trips people up with alignment is the mistaken belief that any character can have one and only one alignment that fits to who they are.

In fact, the default alignment of a character is the alignment the player thinks the character should have, or the DM if it is an NPC. For a non-metagame version if this, the basic alignment of a character is the alignment the character himself believes he has.

Now, this isn't absolute, since of course a character acting blatantly contrary to their alignment will become a different alignment... especially in the Good/Evil spectrum, which is solidly defined (even if many do not like the way it is defined). The law/chaos spectrum isn't nearly as clear, and that is fine. The sđť’‚me chđť’‚rđť’‚cter can be Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral to the law/chaos axis. Take Robin Hood, for example. He's used as the textbook example of Chaotic Good, since he commits crimes in the name of love for his fellow man. However, he can also be seen as Lawful Good, as he is staunchly loyal to the true king and resists an unlawful usurper. It all depends on how you view the character, and what the character considers himself.

>this argument again

Paladins smite Evil in a setting where Evil is a tangible essence. You can't apply the ethical considerations from a setting where that's a thing to a work where it isn't. If a person in D&D is evil, it basically invalidates all other considerations about their personality and Smiting them has no more moral weight than putting down a rabid dog.

There's also the fact just because you kill Evil doesn't mean you aren't Evil yourself. The Punisher murders people and puts innocents in dangerous situations in process. Solely because he believes the system doesn't do a good enough job of keeping people he doesn't like off the streets.

Doesn't sound very Good to me, famalam.

>That pic
What's he gonna do, light my stove for me?

You guys forget that the Punisher also goes to extreme lengths to protect innocent lives. He cannot be evil in that regard, whether or not that balances out his sadism and other evil tendencies when dealing with torturing evildoers.

A paladin that enjoys smiting evil doesn't make him evil.

Are you implying the types of people the Punisher kills are any different? They're violent murders, psychopaths, pedophiles, rapists, etc.

They are, by all means, people who even society and the average civilian would deem evil and would give the death sentence, but since the judicial system isn't perfect, the Punisher has to deal with them instead.

You also seem to forget that the Punisher's first appearance involved gunning down everyone and everyone who had committed a crime, down to jaywalkers who illegally crossed the street to get away from the trigger-happy maniac.

Not him, but when he's well-written, yes. When he's written by a shitty author, he regularly puts innocents in danger with his stupid actions.

Like his shotgun rampage in the hospital in the show. "I was intentionally missing you! Never mind that I hit everything around you except for my target!"

I'm not saying the people Frank kills are any better than him.

Just that he isn't automatically Good just for killing them.

>You guys forget that the Punisher also goes to extreme lengths to protect innocent lives.

I was under the impression most writers just have him ignore innocents. Like he'll rarely ever go out of his way to save people because he's mainly interested in punishing.

Hurting perpetrators doesn't help victims. The whole basis of Good is helping victims. The basis of Law is preventing people from becoming victims in the first place.

The feature that separates Lawful Good from Lawful Evil is understanding that criminals are victims themselves.

>understanding that criminals are victims themselves.

>Just that he isn't automatically Good just for killing them.

He's not automatically evil either which is the other argument.

You can't have two rape victims in a rape involving 2 people you nigger.

Being a crackwhore isn't the glamorous life of excess you think it is.

It doesn't make him automatically Evil, but the results and effects of his actions definitely slide him more that way.

Even though he explicitly doesn't target innocents, it's not like they fucking know that. All they know is there's a crazy gunman out there killing people in the streets, at their jobs, even in their homes. That terrifies people. And it throws the city into chaos.

Not to mention it spooks the people affiliated with his victims; people who are often vicious bad guys themselves. So they'll escalate, and before you know it the entire city is a battlefield between police, gangsters, and one crazy guy who only answers to himself. Maybe one of the other baker's dozen of super heroes who live in New York will get involved and things will get even crazier.

All because Frank doesn't like how the system works.

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE SYSTEM IS EVIL

You can be a victim of something other than rape so your comeback is bad and you should feel bad

No, you have one victim of violent assault and one victim of cultural indoctrination that places women in the position of being gatekeepers of male sexuality. You can't pit two groups that rely on each other to survive against one another and not expect violence.

It's a harsh truth that a lot of people aren't strong enough to face. The whole concept of guilt and deserving one thing or another was always irrational. When suffering occurs we want someone else to suffer to make up for it, as if that rights something. Because humans are emotional and stupid.

Yeah but that crackwhore's pimp ain't a fucking victim.


Stop being such a bleeding heart. "Society was mean to me!" isn't an excuse for being a shitty person and you eventually reach a point where you deserve to get thrown in jail.

You remind of the Los Angeles mayor. The guy who just recently came out saying it's important to thank and honor convicted felons for "serving their debt to society".

Here's the difference, you faggot. The rape victim isn't going around doing other crimes and raping people. The rapist is, regardless of whether or not they're a "victim".

Being a victim doesn't give you a free pass to victimize others.

>cultural indoctrination that places women in the position of being gatekeepers of male sexuality
>rapists are victims because society says women can refuse sex

Holy shit are you serious?

Not with that attitude!

To be fair, it isn't for "having connections to bad people" or else it would have been him who killed the DA.

>Still Remove Crack

When I say "connections" I mean "guy who's in the same gang as the dude who stuck up and killed someone".

Honestly, I got the impression the main reason he didn't go for the DA was because even though she was shitty she wasn't nearly as high on his list as the Blacksmith and his goons.

That was not what anyone was talking about and either your reading comprehension is terrible or you need to exercise some restraint on when you splurge your opinions on issues that are only tangentially related to the issue being discussed

>The Punisher
>good

Yeah, I can see that. Honestly Show Frank played fast and loose with his modern comic characterization, not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a huge comic Frankfag and I still loved that shit. I'm really looking forward to what they're going to do with the show, and if they keep the Blacksmith plot going or spread out into others like MAX

The rapist isn't going around doing other crimes, either. Look up the demographics for rape. The vast majority of rapists are normal highschool and college age kids that don't understand when "no" means no. Being raped at gunpoint in a back alley isn't really a thing that happens.

It's like talking about gun control laws with people that think automatic weapons and AR-style rifles (but not handguns) should be banned, when they account for a tiny, tiny fraction of gun deaths.

It's directly relevant and you're trying to claim otherwise because you're retarded. The claim put forward is that "Perpetrators are Victims too" and the rebuttal is that "That doesn't give them the right to create more victims".

Stop trying to misdirect.

I really loved ShowFrank because he was a great mix of Good and Evil. One one hand, he's a prick who murders people and causes problems for everyone else.

On the other hand, it's weirdly satisfying to watch him beat a guy who sells pedo shit with a baseball bat.

They're giving him his own series

>is understanding that criminals are victims themselves.

The only possible way this can be "logical" is if you lump any person who commits a crime into the singular category of "criminal" and never subdivide it into better categories.

Yes, crackwhores are victims of substance abuse, and their actions can be explained (though NOT excused) by their actions, but serial rapists who grab women off the street and rape them just for the pure sexual thrill of deviancy are not significantly less of a victim, and they're sure as hell less of a victim than their own victims.

Explanations for behavior are NOT an excuse for them. Yes, crack is an addictive substance, and addiction is a disease, but at the end of the day if you steal an HVAC unit to pay for your crack habit, you have committed a crime and deserve the punishment for doing so. You deserve to be helped for your addiction, but you must still pay the price for your actions.

I think that was a big appeal. He was a lot rougher than Comic Frank, less "Criminal Terminator" and more of a very angry person expressing it in shitty ways. Kind of like a retrospective of "What Punisher was like in his early days".

I FUCKING KNOW. HYPE AS SHIT

>lawful neutral

vigilantism is outside the law

They both chaotic good senpai.

Yep, your reading comprehension is terrible

Nobody is defending the rapist's crime. What is being discussed is that the rapist himself was most likely led to his crime by a culture that objectifies women, and not just because he decided to go rape someone on a vacuum

>The vast majority of rapists are normal highschool and college age kids that don't understand when "no" means no.

That's still skeevy as fuck and easily solved by not being a shitheel. You don't need a lifetime of developmental coaching to stop and think "huh this person is uncomfortable with this, maybe I should leave her alone" or "maybe this girl's too drunk".

Rape culture is a load of horseshit but you're not a victim yourself if you refuse to see the difference between right and wrong.

Nah user. His first appearance was as a mercenary working for the Jackal to take out Spider-man. He'd been tricked into believing that Spider-Man was a murderer, and predictably flipped shit when he realized the Jackal had played him.
His "shooting at Jay walkers" phase wasn't until a few years later, and was explicitly the result of him losing his mind, later ret-conned to being drug-induced madness sprung on him by an enemy. Most of the time in between he was a grim, brutal but fairly reasonable antagonist/temporary ally of various super heroes who would usually show up hunting the villain of the week and have to be convinced not to murderize said villain. He also could be convinced to spare mooks while working with the likes of Spider-Man or Captain America.

pic unrelated

That's because nobody is saying the rapist is a crime OF THE RAPE ITSELF, but that he's a victim of cultural indoctrination

>What is being discussed is that the rapist himself was most likely led to his crime by a culture that objectifies women, and not just because he decided to go rape someone on a vacuum

Both are entirely real and equal possibilities, especially if we're talking forcible, violent rape here.

Also, forcible rapists almost ALWAYS have maternal issues that compound their behavior, typically an extremely controlling and/or abusive mother, and they "lash out" at women because of a deep seated anger at their past and the abuses they themselves suffered. In this case, cultural objectification isn't the primary motivator.

the argument can certainly be made with regards to spousal or date rape, however.

Yeah, and your claim that cultural indoctrination is somehow the cause and not the person being a fucking cunt is moronic and nonsensical.

The Lawful alignment refers solely to the character's adhering to literal legal decrees

I make all my paladins fall by having the evil emperor put a "No Paladins Allowed" sign on his skull fortress.

> the rapist himself was most likely led to his crime by a culture that objectifies women

>he's a victim of cultural indoctrination

It doesn't work this way, user. It only takes as shred of common decency to learn no means no regardless of how many Victoria's Secret billboards you see.

"Society gave me blueballs" isn't an excuse. It's not a reason. It's not even a valid explanation. People rape because they never bothered learning boundaries, or because they're maniacs who like to exert power over people.

I'm never gonna go "oh that poor kid" when an actual, honest-to-God rapist gets burnt just because he probably saw a couple commercials for frilly thong underwear.

You are essentially arguing for moral objectivism and dismissing the influence of culture

It's not a matter of being allowed to refuse sex. The issue is where society measures men by their ability to have sex with many partners, and women by their restraint in choosing partners. You now have two populations with opposing goals that are forced together. It becomes a competition that pits men against women. Both men and women often resort to violence in order to achieve their goal, but since most men are significantly stronger than most women, men tend to use physical violence more often and women tend to use emotional violence more often. Obviously that's not to say that it's rare for things to happen the other way around.

The solution isn't to lock up men who commit rape, because that won't prevent more women from being raped. No one is going to stop and think "maybe I shouldn't rape this girl because I might go to prison," because they don't think what they're doing even counts as rape in the first place because they're not an evil bogeyman in a back alley with a knife to her throat.

Not that user but there's a case to be made for calling Frank chaotic neutral, because he just decides who deserves to die on no basis besides his own judgment.

Most rape isn't someone getting horny and physically overwhelming a woman to forcefully penetrate her. It's mostly people without a modicum of self-awareness not realizing when they've gone too far on situations they perceive as being appropiate

You're right in a lot of ways but

>society measures

This is a bit misleading. We evolved for millions of years, and throughout that evolution, males genetically desired to inseminate as many females as possible, and females genetically desired to be as choosy as possible to select the best genes. Society does exacerbate this, but its roots are in who we are as a species.

And you are dismissing free will and personal choice in the pursuit of seeing cruel and malicious people through a sympathetic lens. Culture is highly effective, but in this day and age it's not an excuse when we have access to literally every culture ever and their views on shit.

Not even to mention that sex criminals are seen as less than fucking dirt in almost every culture, anyways.

I don't think that user is saying this indoctrination excuses the heinous crimes of the rapist, but that they explain the action. What he's suggesting is probably rehabilitation over punishment.

>Guardian Sect

>Mercy Killers

See I still just don't buy that. I'm not gonna feel bad for the kid, even if he's just being stupid instead of malevolent.

Now there is a growing trend of any guy acting in any way sexually forward getting accused of rape. That's one thing. But continuing to grope a girl even though she's obviously uncomfortable or banging someone who's blackout drunk when you're basically sober is pretty shitty behavior. And it's behavior you can manage by just having a bit of common sense and empathy.

Not him, and really not agreeing with him, but I find it amusing that "Our God is a just God" is often used to justify atrocious treatment of 'criminals' in the bible and elsewhere.

Got that just-ness goin' on there.

>Most rape is nonviolent!
So are you claiming that people who roofy chicks somehow think that they're justified? Because nobody thinks that shit.

Yeah, yeah, everybody who commits evil acts does so due to reasons. That doesn't take away the fact that these people still cause problems for the rest of society.

Kid born into a life of gang violence and drugs? Yeah, in a better environment, he might've not been involved in those things, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the problem. Even with a lifetime of attempted rehabilitation, his chances will still be slim of turning back on his old life and staying clean at the first sign of tough times. You really have to weigh the lives of others against the offender and decide on that merit. Sure, it would be nice to give someone a second chance, but not at the cost of damaging already functioning people in the process.

The Punisher simply removes offending elements from society. Mostly this is just out of compulsion, but sometimes it's in a vague pursuit to improve the lives of everyone else, to prevent other families from being destroyed. I especially like his character at the end of Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe, as he doesn't see himself above being "punished" either. He recognizes his actions are destructive to others and sees it as something that will be dealt with too.

>cruel and malicious
Some college douche not realizing when he's making a girl uncomfortable is less cruelty and maliciousness and more stupidity and lack of empathy.

Getting a girl drunk so you can have your way with her is maliciousness, not realizing she's too drunk before having sex isn't. Both are still rape, but one is almost definitely worse than the other.
>Not even to mention that sex criminals are seen as less than fucking dirt in almost every culture, anyways.
VIOLENT rapists, yes. There's many types of rape and some people discuss if many should be even considered rape.

No, and that's not even a tiny bit close to what I'm saying on any way, just your strawman

>Magneto
>The Hulk

Here we go again with removing free will and personal choice. If someone's so fucking drunk that they can't move, nobody thinks it's okay to fuck them. You're still a scumfuck in everyone's eyes if you pull that.

>Getting a girl drunk so you can have sex with her is maliciousness
Okay friend, all barsex is rape

That's wrong, though. Humanity's closest living relatives are bonobos, who have sex with a dozen different partners every day. The problem isn't our evolutionary directives, it's our cultural refusal to admit that we are just animals.

>Lack of empathy

You hit the nail on the head. He's not raping a girl because he wants her to suffer, he's raping a girl because he doesn't care enough if she does or doesn't. He doesn't know her. He doesn't care. His animal brain is telling him she's got a hole and he wants to get his rocks off, and his human brain is telling him he might get away with it, or maybe he isn't even thinking about that.

If it's a strawman, debunk it instead of throwing out fallacies like you just got back from the website they're all listed on and think throwing them in will make you look smarter, you fucking retard.

To be fair, they were zombies at the time.

>Still stupid

You don't need to be "so fucking drunk you can't move" to act against your best judgement.
>Okay friend, all barsex is rape
What? Now you're going to turn around and tell me knowingly getting a girl drunk for the purpose of having sex with her, while knowing she most likely wouldn't consent while sober, isn't rape?

>like you just got back from the website they're all listed on

Does such a website exist? Because half the time when I'm in a thread it feels like every other person browses it.

I don't need to "debunk" what is a deliberate misreading of my post and not an actual argument

If you think that being drunk is a justification for making stupid decisions, you're a fucking idiot. It's a reason. It's not an excuse.

Frank is LN at best

arguably LE

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

You can always tell when people have it open in another tab when they just respond with one of them.

Now the problem is deciding if that's a crime on the same magnitude as violent rape, and if they should be punished on the same way

Someone who doesn't care for other people has a better chance of learning the consequences of his actions than someone who goes out of his way to harm others

What the fuck do you think I'm arguing for in that post?

Pretty much all rape is rape in the eyes of the public. A guy being branded for life for hooking up with a freshman chick in high school when he was a senior who was three years and 1 1/2 months older than her and her mom called the cops a week later when a friend told her, leading to the guy having to wear a fucking brand of "SEX OFFENDER" for the next 12 years is STILL seen as a rapist by the general population, because the law has branded him as such.

You'd have to take into account how affected the victim was, too.

I should point out what started this whole thing was a guy saying Lawful Good means

>understanding that criminals are victims themselves.

And he immediately backtracked to a really specific case of crime where the motivator is sometimes stupidity and lack of common sense than actual malevolence.

Just locking people away isn't a solution. You have to do it permanently, otherwise you're just sending people to criminal school for 10 or 15 years and then releasing them back into society. At that point you might as well just kill them, but I don't think anyone advocates the death sentence for jaywalking or software piracy.

The solution to crime is removing the situations that lead to crime. That doesn't mean we should ignore thieves and rapists and murderers, but it does mean that we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot by forcing them to join gangs to survive their time in prison. Instead we should be rehabilitating them and preparing them to become productive members of society.

Now, I realize that there are some people that will never have a place in society, and we should have high security asylums for the Charles Mansons of the world. But those people are incredibly rare; on the order of a mere handful compared to the millions of people we currently have locked in prisons.

If you know your judgement is compromised while under the influence, why would you ever put yourself in that situation in the first place? At least have someone with you to make those decisions for you when you go out drinking, it's not hard. I've had my brother save me from all sorts of dumb shit after knocking back too many.

It's not "really specific" when it represents most of the instances of that crime

For the record, I was not the one that brought up rape. If the first counterexample was theft or murder, I would have gone that way.

It really comes down to the severity of the crime and the context for the crime, and that's the problem with the justice system. Someone who killed someone in a barfight probably shouldn't be locked away for life, someone who shot their family because they were 'frustrated' should probably get the fucking chair, but there's little room in the modern justice system for context. It's not a simple problem to fix, either. Who decides the context?

Most people don't, and shouldn't need to, operate under the assumption they're going to get raped

It's a good idea to bring someone with you, but that doesn't mean the victim is equally at fault as the actual perpetrator

>That said I'm not a mental health professional
I can tell. Psychopathy develops earlier. Frank had a traumatic event happen to him at the same time as he got brain damage from a bullet wound. A label like "psychopath" doesn't cover the effects of those events.

Punisher is Chaotic Lawful

>I can tell

Oh don't be shitty. I'm not calling Frank an actual clinical psychopath. Just his behavior is similar to those of actual people with psychopathy, so it's not some cardinal sin for laymen to jump to that conclusion.

>someone who shot their family because they were 'frustrated' should probably get the fucking chair
If someone were frustrated enough to shoot their family, there's probably some serious shit going down, probably psychiatric in nature. Instead of just killing him or her in turn, why not make an attempt to actually identify the problem and fix it?