Is "the kind of evil that doesn't even realize it's evil" inherently worse/more dangerous than the kind of evil that...

The hague.

Define inherently worse.

If a villian is anything but a flat one dimensional plot device, then 9 times out of ten they will believe what they are doing is the right thing. Not the good thing, but ultimately the right thing.

It can be more dangerous depending on what exactly the reasoning is behind the behavior and how charismatic the villain is but it can also be limiting as a villain with principles may have a line they won't cross that unabashed evil will.

But if the villain is so objectively evil, they're probably dull.

...

Well look at any brutal dictator in history. Hitler and Stalin and Mao believed they were doing the "right thing" but there was no way they thought institutionalized murder was a squeaky clean methodology.

Yeah they believed they were doing what was best for their country but genocide is not a squeaky clean business.

Spooky

>abloo abloo, you can't use effective bullets that actually kill people quickly
>use FMJs so you only gravely injure or disfigure them and make their friends carry them away to the rest of their miserable lives

These are the people we let determine right and wrong?

Leave it to Satan to be in the thread about evil.

How's it goin, Lucy?

Yes, because that is a man who honestly believes that he's saving, protecting, or working towards something truly worth dying for.

Like OP's pic, who's dedication to his cause gave him the strength to successfully kill the main characters and almost flawlessly enact his plan.

I love minions who are fucking based.

Spoiler: people want to live, even if it means learning to walk again on prosthetic legs.

> Checked.

Yes, but my reply was not "bad with good intentions is good." I was replying to a post that said that they "didn't care" that they are evil. I'm saying that they don't see themselves as evil.

>Lucifer rebelled against a god that he watched create humans only to fuck with them

>bad guy

So again, you believe that a group of people has the right to claim the moral superiority of extremely painful, prolonged death and or crippling wounds over a quick clean death.

And these are the "good guys".

who the fuck "realizes their evil"

nobody actually goes around going "don't worry, it's okay, I'm evil" as they do things

What's more dangerous, a force of evil or a force of good?

Some serial killers realize they are evil.

>nobody actually goes around going "don't worry, it's okay, I'm evil" as they do things

Lots of people committing atrocities comprehend that they are evil, some of them just like doing it other have justifications worthwhile or not.

>That's not really how that kind of bad guy works.
>That kind of bad guy doesn't exist even though you can literally create them in a fantasy world

Your mom.

>But if the villain is so objectively evil, they're probably dull.
>Thinks you can guess the chances of a character being interesting without experiencing the character in action

In that case having a lewd folder of pokemon girls is evil.

>Lucifer rebelled against a god that he watched create humans only to fuck with them

Depends on setting.

...

Avoid paladins user.

> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

>nobody actually goes around going "don't worry, it's okay, I'm evil" as they do things

Yeah, because they just go "Eh, I'm evil w/e" as they do their horrible thing.

It's a lot easier to do horrible things if you free yourself of self-control.

I love JoJo villains for this fucking reason. He just wanted the people of America to live better lives.

Didn't Jesus technically side with him against the main characters?

No, Jesus was giving Johnny advice as a force ghost. Valentine just happened to collect all the corpse parts, so he got Love Train.

>evil that doesn't even realize it's evil

But that would mean they have a justification for their "evil"

If a man takes a rifle into a building and slaughters all of the inhabitants you would automatically assume him evil correct?

that is your point of view as an observer

Now suppose the man had previously discovered that the inhabitants of the building were all violent butcher rapists that had been raping and murdering people in the surrounding area for years.

The man still walked into a building and slaughtered everyone inside, is that not evil?

Or does his justification leave him in the good bracket?

Is his justification just?

Will you ever know of his justification to make a judgement?

I said probably. In such a case it really depends on the skills of the GM or writer.

It can certainly be done. Been most times when it is, it's not out of genius.

:>Daily jojo spam

What the fuck is wrong with you.

>Some of you guys are alright
>Don't go the orc camp tomorrow

>that is your point of view as an observer

No. That is the fact that the vast majority of people aren't violent butcher rapists who deserve to be wholly slaughtered. Therefore hearing about someone who slaughters all the inhabitants of a building allows one to make a highly probably assumption that the killer is a horrible person. Also it's bonus points for when people hear about such reports its usually accompanied by a description of the building feeding into the "running the numbers" of whether or not the victims are deserving of being slaughtered.

>The man still walked into a building and slaughtered everyone inside, is that not evil?

What the fuck is even this? Your scenarios suck fucking dick and don't cause thought, they just bait people to respond so you can try to be all "fools, I've taken philosophy 101 and watch anime"

Fuck off asshole. I hope I'm the only dumb motherfucker who takes your shitty bait.

>making villains who are objectively evil is hard to make interesting

Uuuuuuuuuhhhhhh

Just enjoy Jojo dude. Don't be a shithead

>No. That is the fact that the vast majority of people aren't violent butcher rapists who deserve to be wholly slaughtered

in that fantasy scenario they were renting the whole building and were like a butcher rapist cult but you got hung up on things that did not matter so that you could throw a hissyfit, thanks for being autistic.

>we can't talk about evil people and their justifications and whether or not said evil people are evil and do not realize it or if their justifications still have them count as good within our moral systems because I get hung up on minor details.

But it's shit and your threads are fucking garbage.

Of course Satan would know about unknowing being evil.

sup lucy

...user...what does them renting the building have anything to do with anything?

>or if their justifications still have them count as good within our moral systems

That's a pretty shitty moral system. You should work on it some more.

Jesus Christ how is this as retarded an argument as it is? Who the hell let /pol/ onto Veeky Forums? Is there some Hitler Roleplaying Game that I don't know about?

>objectively evil

I've taken philosophy and watched anime 101.
There is no greater good, there is no good or evil period except that defined subjectively.

So I'm gonna go with a no-kill thing and say that killing is wrong, and that the butcher rapists were not brought 'justice'

People know the stuff they're doing is wrong all the time, but it's better than the alternative. Whether that's calling in sick to get out of work cos if you have to deal with that stress you'll probably kill someone, or whether that's robbing the country of their full freedoms and killing certain people because otherwise the country isn't going to survive the war

You've never heard of Social Justice Warriors, have you? Or Intersectional Feminism?

To expand on Satan here, "don't know they're evil" to me means they believe they're doing bad things for the right reasons. Ends justify the means, essentially. Yeah, the guy knows killing people is wrong, but believed he needs to in order to do true good, compared to which this wrongdoing is nothing.

Actually child like ignorance is also a possible and fun varriant on evil. A child who torturers a fly doesn't know he's causing it needless suffering, he's just curious.

>implying they're not good
>implying you're not the evil one

Most of my villains see themselves as Lawful Good.

> Guardian of the Elixir of Life, the ichor of a dead god
> Elixir is stolen, but he can't tell by whom
> Can track the Elixir, but the original thief put droplets of it into an army's water supply, diluting it and spreading it across 10,000 people
> He goes insane trying to find and kill all 10,000 people before the ichor turns each and every one of them into a godforsaken monster
> Sees killing the imbibers of the Elixir as not just justice, but as mercy also
> Anyone who gets in his way or attacks him must be executed as well, for interfering in the duties of an agent of the gods carries a death sentence
> Party consists of people who either drank the Elixir or interfered with agents of the gods

It's a chilling thing when the creature in spectral plate points at you and sentences you to die, and knowing that by trying to cut your head off he's literally being as merciful as possible.

Why can't they both be irredeemable garbage?

>You should not base your life around something which has no material effect upon the world
>Said the philosopher

It amazes me that anyone took Stirner seriously enough to reprint the shit he wrote, much less make him into a meme a century later.

I mean, this character seems to run into the problem I have with a lot of wanna-be good baddies.

I think if he communicated about what he was doing, it would mostly resolve the problem. And there isn't really a reason to keep it a secret.

>convince my dm to watch jojo
>he makes a reference that kills the game

>I think if he communicated about what he was doing, it would mostly resolve the problem. And there isn't really a reason to keep it a secret.

If the PCs buy what he's selling and submit themselves to a quick execution, the campaign ends. If they delay the inevitable and try to search out a cure, which is what terminally ill adventurers would want to do, the game continues.

I mean, if in his grand unveiling next session, the party says, "We give up, cut our heads off and put our blood into jars," I'll feel silly as all hell.

I would not say so, no. Someone who believes he is doing the right thing can be reasoned with, if they are rational.

The problem is that unless you have some objective, indisputable framework for morality, at some point it will literally just become your word against his as to whether you or he is right. At some point it will always boil down to "because it's wrong," or "because it's right," which is essentially always subjective.

So unless you can actually demonstrate the case of why you are right and he is wrong in language that isn't simply a repetition of what you believe, you will probably never convince an actual fanatic that they are wrong, because both of your claims are ultimately opinions.

But, while it may be difficult, it could actually be possible to convince such a person that they are, if not wrong, then at least not looking at all sides of the matter, and so should stop killing/enslaving/transforming people into goo or whatever.

However, a person who is perfectly aware that what they are doing is immoral, but doesn't care because their desire for wealth, status or power outweighs any moral concerns they might have, cannot be reasoned with in that way--perhaps at all. A person who wants to kill you because he wants your inheritance isn't going to be swayed by appeals to morality. He almost certainly has already considered and accepted the moral ramifications of his actions. He'd rather be a bastard in a mansion than a decent person on the street. Worse still are people with moral compasses who are simply desperate beyond the point of caring.

At that point all you can really do is either stop him, or offer him something more than what he wanted--or demonstrate a way in which his plan would manifestly harm himself more than it would benefit him.

I would rather face an ideologue than a pragmatist, truth be told.

Killing small unarmed children's objectively evil

Is killing big unarmed children morally good?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C.S. Lewis

I mean, that seems like a VERY reasonable option. I'd need to know the details, but a good amount of my characters would do, like, exactly that.

>you gonna die
>when you die, you gonna become a monster

Like, short of having a VERY good idea of when it would happen or having a VERY good idea of what a cure might be...suicide/execution before becoming a monster and hurting more people seems like the best plan. Only real prob I see is whether or not the character would believe this story.

Objectively hilarious.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The worst atrocities and greatest acts of destruction are perpetrated by people who think they're doing the right thing.

You mean a setting where Christianity isn't just a re-hash of older religions?

yes? are you a sociopath? biggies gotta die for the normies to live

Objectively wrong

>I would not say so, no. Someone who believes he is doing the right thing can be reasoned with, if they are rational.
This.

> if they are rational.
With this caveat.
“There is nothing worse than a monster who believes they’re right with god.”
There are those who do evil and think that they are doing good. If you can reason with them and show them that they are doing what they would consider evil, then they may stop.
Them there are those who do evil and *believe* that they are doing good.
To stop them, you need to end their beliefs, which need not be mired in reason, rationality, or facts.
Sometimes the only way to end a man’s beliefs is with a bullet.

>>objectively evil
Dismissing that which cannot be disproven only serves to make you look foolish.
Objectively evil things could very well exist, all one needs to do is imagine an idea that no sane being in all of the cosmos would ever consider to be a good thing, then that idea becomes the new bar for an objectively evil act.

sure?

And it's right, flies are too primitive to suffer

I don't get it, you just posted a normal man and his girlfriend.

I dunno user, look at the progressive political movement and you tell me.

...

It is, especially if it thinks it fights for good. Because people are good at justifying assholish behaviour if it's "for a good cause". Sometimes even consumers of the media will do it.
Pic very related.

>That moment when you realize Mormonism is the objectively true Christianity in the Jojo-verse.

The point of a war isn't to rack up the killcount.

Moral facts or properties don't exist so your question is malformed.

The truth of p doesn't follow from the impossibility to entertain not-p and if you're an error theorist you neither consider anything to be neither good nor bad (in a strictly objective sense).

I'm pretty sure that political correctness is an evil that thinks it's doing good.

It's evil if it fucks other people up. "Do unto others" is the basis of philosophy man.

Noone, so everyone's judgement is equally valid. The diffrence is, only some can enforce their point of view, using charisma or/and might.

What you call political correctness was called "manners and subtlety" by the generations that preceded you.
You, and people like you, want a license to be assholes and not be called out for being assholes. It is the logical end result of the "freedom" that Millenials wanted: to be free of self restraint and personal accountability.

I don't want to go around calling people niggers. I just can't stand some self righteous cunts telling me not to do something I want going to do in the first place, and even if I did do it, it wouldn't be anything to do with them. It isn't manners, it's not trying to be everyone's overbearing mother.

You jojotards have the dumbest arguments.

>What you call political correctness was called "manners and subtlety" by the generations that preceded you.
The generations that called niggers niggers, and considered quite a lot of behavior that's common in women nowadays "unladylike"? The generations that created the BBC myth to make blacks look more animalistic?

You know their "manners and subtlety" go both ways, right? Nothing triggers tumblr more than a true gentleman, the kind that will tell you women are to be seen rather than heard and will tell you to cover your chest in public because he doesn't want to be seen in the company of a whore.

Well, you can discourage a pragmatist from harming you by presenting him with equal or better alternatives.
If an ideologue want's to harm you, he will try to do so because harming you is not a mean to a goal, IT IS the goal.

Seriously, these kind of posts are retarded as shit.

You guys are morons.

Except that's not what PC actually is, but what you think it is because someone tells you, "Hey, you are being a twat" and your response is "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT THIS IS 'MURRIKA".
Son, I think you need to understand something about the generations you are speaking of. The people you are talking about would have been considered trash then, trash now, and you are mistaken in "both ways". The point was that while you could think many things about a person or situation, you kept the unpleasantness and desire to be an asshole to yourself and close company, not broadcast it in public because you have the belief that what you have to say must be told to as many as possible.
I did not say people were saints, but the people who believed in manners would not go prattling about what you are talking about openly the way conveniently does (thank you for appearing just in time to prove my point).
And you should not mistake the classic norms of chivalry with American Gentlemenly conduct or Southern high class society.

On what basis? What is the metaphysical status of the fact "killing small unarmed children is wrong"? How did you come to know this truth? What are the truth makers of said truth?

In other words, you want to say whatever you want without negative consequences.

So if I shoot baby Stalin after I time travel to save the world from his horrors, I have done evil by harming his family emotionally?

The Gods, generally.

Dude, you're the dumbest of the lot.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
-C.S. Lewis.