How do I make a villain that violently embraces the virtues of childhood?

Who do you think Nick Cage is?

...

Someone that literally cannot understand what it means to be told "No"

Alternate picture

All villains are childish, they put their own wants and desires above the needs and rights of others, an extremely childish behavior.

I mean for a world leader that's arguably a good trait to have in certain situations.

A good leader knows when to hold their ground and not be told no, and when they are fucking it up and need to be reined in.

Wisdom yo, not a dump stat. (this is implying the childish form of hardheadedness, unwavering faith in your own opinion is a childish and frankly stupid trait that needs to be cleansed.)

You have three to eight years to wax apologia, just wait.

This. Villains are selfish children, good guys think of the greater good like smart adults.

What are the virtues of childhood?

I think greater good people are childish too, for exactly the same reasons (your wants don't overwrite my needs/rights).

Being an adult is not violating someone else rights or letting your wants (and fears, passion, stupidity, training, racism, prejudice, history, heritage) control your actions (and accepting that you shouldn't behave like an asshat)

Adulthood is cooperating and finding a solution. Not forcing what you think is the right thing to do.

It's also standing up to those who are childish.

Innocence, lack of accountability (modern society), potential and understandable stupidity.

more like advantages than anything.

But user, how can you claim to be good if you allow people to be bad?

Holy shit I thought my ass would be on fire for that one.

You get it, and I'm glad.

Because if they are free game when they violate the bounds of good.

I allow people to choose for themselves, not for other people. If your actions violate the rights and needs of *another* human being, then i'll persecute you in the name of justice.

Ie; You can do drugs all you want, but don't force someone to do them with you. YIf someone is beating on someone else, it's you duty as good to stop the fight and prevent any more hostility. If someone is violating someone else's basic rights as a hman being (not to be killed, mistreated, forced into anything ETC), then they've waved their own rights to humanship and should be cleansed. Or rehabilitated. really depends.

I never said i was good, i implied i was right (good and evil being subjective concepts and not objective, i will, until evidence is provided else wise, that the ultimate evil is forcing another human, or human-intellect, into something against their will. Fullstop.)

It's pretty simple to see that working with people in a cooperative and equitable manor will make your endeavors significantly more successful than if you are antagonistic and a douchewaffle. Nothing to it.

>I allow

Who decided that you get to decide for everyone?

who says you get to decide else wise?

Seriously, think about it. the only times i'll step in is when someone is being an asshole to someone else. That's it.

I'm pretty sure i'm in the right to do so.

...

For a more succinct way of putting it;

Im a martial pacifist who suffers no suffering. Mine. Yours. That kid there's. None.

Got it on the head.

>I never said i was good

If you're not good, how is someone bad? How do you define a "villain" then?

Who asked you to step in? What rules are your working on when being an asshole is against them? Who or what gives you the rights to step on other people's rights?

>Nothing to it.
No, it's just that people get triggered whenever Trump comes up. ESPECIALLY if you try to break the illusion of a straight black-and-white situation. I.E., "that trait of his which you hate is occasionally a benefit."

>suffers no suffering

And what are you gonna do about it? Start taking care of everyone?

I'm not sure I agree, Satan. Particularly in the American system of government, being able to accept when one of your ideas just isn't in the cards and compromising and making deals as needed is a key skill to have. One of the smartest things Reagan ever said was that it's better to get 80% of what you want than to go over a cliff with your flag flying.

A good leader does need to stand their ground in certain situations, but it's much more important to know when it's important to hold fast and when you should compromise or concede a point and move forward. Otherwise you end up ruining everything because you constantly find yourself in a battle to the death about every little thing.

Even if you're the boss, not everything is gonna go your way. If you can't handle that you're not gonna do a good job.

...

No, but he can damn well TRY can't he? What's wrong with that?

At the risk of sounding cheesier than a German dinner, I earnestly feel like I love everyone. Every time I see someone sad, or upset, or angry, I just want to comfort them and make them feel better. I'd do anything to make the world better as a whole.

Those things aren't even virtues. Closest one would be innocence, but I have a hard time seeing that in a villain.

>Satan
No, devil's advocate.
Never said I liked the guy, and the key in there was
>certain situations

>Im a martial pacifist
Wot?

It's not 2020-2024 yet, you don't need to justify yourself before the House of Unintelligent Activities yet. Settle down.

A villan is someone who does wrong. Simple as that, i think the most wrong thing you can do (as in bad/evil/thisisprettysimpletogetwhatthefuck) is to value your WANTS over someone elses NEEDS and RIGHTS. I also think being an asshole is evil. so there ya go.

I asked me to. Because i think it'
s the right thing to do. Because it lessens suffering.

It's the duty of the strong to serve the weak and give them their strength so that all may be standing at the same basic (and livable) level.

So yeah, i do take care of everyone i can.

As useful as his traits are sometimes, the negative OUTMOTHERFUCKINGWIEGH the positives. So really, yeah it's obvious he's a shitty POTUS and the republicans really only know how to skip leg day.

I don't initiate fights, but i'm probably the most trained person in the room (3 years kravmaga, 5 years mui tai, studied the basics of most founding martials, and spent a good amount of time in the military) and i won't attack r harm someone unless they've harmed or attacked someone else.

I NEVER show hostility first, and i WILL step in if i see violence being committed.

>House of Unintelligent Activities
Kek.

Really though, I'm not trying to justify myself and I'm not worked up. Just wanted to point that shit out is all.

>Muay Tai

Fuck spelling.

>No, but he can damn well TRY can't he? What's wrong with that?

Point is he's not GOING to try. He's doing to say that he cares, but then act in complete contradiction of that statement. Such as by deciding that it's more important for him to troll Veeky Forums than to help starving children in africa or whatever. Even if he was in africa right now just taking a break from starving children he'd still be failing to live up to his ideals except to a degree. But when you introduce degrees than all of a sudden anyone can say anything they feel like about anything. Oh yeah, I TRY to be good, but sometimes I may rape a bitch. That's fine though because I TRY not to and that's my moral code. Yeah, fuck off buddy. Why not try constructing a moral code that actually works in reality instead of one that exists just to make you feel good about yourself huh?

But to be fair, this is the case for most moral positions people adopt.

I agree, in certain situations. The problem is when it seems to be "hold fast and never back down" in EVERY situation, which is unfortunately where I feel we are at right now and is not, in my view, a healthy stance to take.

Gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, as they say. If you hold 'em all the time you're just gonna lose a lot of money and time you didn't have to.

i believe in the excess of moderation as The Way To Be.

Take Michael from The Office and give him a mean streak.

>A villan is someone who does wrong.

Who decides right and wrong?

>your WANTS over someone elses NEEDS and RIGHTS

What if your want to be the hero comes on other people's needs and rights?

>I also think being an asshole is evil.

What if they're only being an asshole to someone who slept with their wife?

>duty of the strong to serve the weak

Could you get me a beer? I'm too weak to weak to get it myself and no one else wants to. I need that beer and surely I have the right to it, I paid for it.

Needs =/= Rights

Therefore,
>Wants > Needs
Is a legitimate option for Good/Neutral characters.

Gotta love it when people fling straw at you like it's a brick.

So your argument is?

i'm sorry, but every point you tried to make skewers itself, has been answered in the previous diction, and if it hasn't is easy to extrapolate.

There is also a massive divide between what we believe are rights, wants, and needs. Which, i'm sure, you'll be childish about (judging by your current line of questioning, it's clear that you are making weak arguments in order to goad me.)

so quick fire
Right and Wrong? I told you, the individual. It's up to other indviduals to help an indivisual to find what is right and what is wrong, but i general say that 'Causing suffering is wrong'

>Hero
Then your an asshole? but that implies that needs and rights aren't settled, or universal, which i believe they are in a simplistic manor.

>Wife
Still being an asshole. Just because you've been wronged doesn't mean you get to wrong another. My argument is intervention and rehabilitation, not vengeance. (ie; Never start a situation, only end it as peacefully as possible and find an alternative solution to the problem that's been had. Looking past a past wrong is part of adulthood.)

>Stong/weak
I ask this then, where, in any of what i have said, did i state that i am willing to suffer being taken advantage of? You, presumably, have the capability to perform the action yourself. if not then i'll help, if so, then you NEED assistance and hey, i'll help. otherwise you're being a dick.

As much as they are separate, it's important to understand that only evil disregards the rights of an individual in order to get what they want, hence it's in the same plateau of importance as needs.

>it's clear that you are making weak arguments in order to goad me

No, I'm trying to understand your personal principles deeper than on some lawful stupid "don't do bad things, only do good things, m'kay?" level. Because that's a very simplistic view and I don't want to assume you're of simple mind.

>Just because you've been wronged doesn't mean you get to wrong another.

Then how does this moral system work, when you can't be an asshole, but no one can stop you because that'd make them the asshole?

>find an alternative solution to the problem that's been had

How you plan on unfucking my wife?

>what i have said, did i state that i am willing to suffer being taken advantage of

Unless you got lie detector to make sure everyone's being honest about their their suffering and their inability to do anything to help it, then you're gonna get taken advantage of.

>only evil disregards the rights of an individual in order to get what they want

Must be shitty being a cop, when you want justice, but you can't arrest or put anyone in jail, because that would disregard their individual rights. Sure, they might have robbed someone, but what rights does the cop have to be an asshole just because someone else was an asshole?

Good need not respect the rights of others to acquire their desires.

That would assume rights are both inalienable and necessarily impartial or virtuous. However rights are by nature simply fundamental normative rules of freedom and entitlement as set forth by legal/social/ethical principles of the society in which they function. This in turn also being subject to temporal and cultural shifts. Never mind the interference of graded absolutism, negative or positive rights, etc.

Respect to the concept of rights is far more accurately prescribed to a lawful concept than good or evil.

>makes HoUA joke about republicans
>while democratic party burns itself down in neo-mccarthyism

uhh...

youtube.com/watch?v=AUyuKicalyw

>understanding
That's fair, and i know you view it as simplistic, but tht's the point. It is a simple mindset, set forth by someone who honestly believes that's the RIGHT way to act, and as a rational being, hasn't come across an argument that sufficient refutes it. I genuinely apologize for a dick about it, i'm use to... different behaviors and am not perfect in my own execution.

>Asshole
No one should be an asshole in the first place, root of problem. It's when you CHOOSE to be an asshole that i'll have to use the strength i have.
>Wife
How do you plan to go about being an adult? the problem isn't the person fucking the wife (unless it was rape, which falls under guy being an asshole) it's the wife not holding herself to the standard she set before herself. You don't possess the weife, she gets to decide to be an asshole, if she she is, it's you right to not deal with her. You get to choose how you respond to things, my morality say 'don't choose to be an asshole'. simple.

>advantage of
I'd rather be wrong about everyone being good, than right about everyone being not. I don't deal with you if you have a history of taking advantage of people (in fact i might have punched you for it), and if you take advantage of me, i will make it a point to ensure you don't deal with the things i've touched. Until you've shown you won't be an asshole. Also, i make it a point to take in a person as they are presenting in front of me, if they happen to be something else i tend to cut ties.
>rights
Remember what i said, i feel human beings have rights, and when you CHOOSE to step on someone else's rights and needs, you throw out your right to those same protections (that being said, your needs should still be met for this to be ultimate good). Ex; a cop shouldn't punish someone for a crime they haven't committed yet. Once a crime is committed, then it's thier duty to intervene and attempt rehabilitation. That's pretty much it.

and for u;
I do agree. But if your desire is the suffering of others, it's your duty to understand that it's unfeasible and detrimental to the people around you, you want becomes an invalid in this regard. As long as your wants and desires don't cause suffering (unwanted interaction etc) then i don't give a fuck. Just don't hurt people to get what you want, find a better way, and work for the betterment of all.

Not that user, but:

>I don't deal with you if you have a history of taking advantage of people (in fact i might have punched you for it)
Except...
>Just because you've been wronged doesn't mean you get to wrong another. My argument is intervention and rehabilitation, not vengeance. (ie; Never start a situation, only end it as peacefully as possible and find an alternative solution to the problem that's been had. Looking past a past wrong is part of adulthood.)

I could be wrong here, but I feel like you don't know how to fight, and you're just trying to take the highest moral ground you can think of.

to add;
I don't like or want to hurt people, but as someone with a lot of strengths and privelages (i'm a 6'2" white male 190 lbs martial artist, so much privilege) i recognize the advantage and power i have. So i decided to explore what the best use of that power would be, and it's giving to those without.

The latter part is correct, however in the former; i served in the Canadian armed forces for 3 years, have extensive martial experience, and am not afraid of pain (it still sucks, but meh).

Precisely put; I want to find the highest moral ground and bring everyone else up here, so that we can all stop being dicks to each other and i don't have to punch another person.

You're ignoring the moral fallacy of "I'll punch you, but you should never use violence or vengeance on another person."

Basically, "It's only okay when I do it, because my morals are better than yours."

You want the best for humanity, I get it. So do I, and so do most people. But that doesn't mean your particular way of going about it is better or more justified. In fact, many places in the world would kill you because they thought your ideals were evil and abhorent. Who's to say THEY aren't the correct ones?

yikes

note how i've phrased it;

it's not 'i'll use violence, but you should never'

it's: 'No one should use violence, but if met with violence i am prepare to use the same level you will in order to ensure survival'

I guess the... ugh superiority (such a tainted word)? comes from seeing the effects and learning from mistakes.

I didn't come to this behavior pattern in a vacuum, i looked, weighed, and spent a long time comparing behaviors to come up with the way i behave. I'm a rational person, if there was a way to increase the general good i'd do it, this (an preaching these ideals) is the closest i've come to find a way to peace.

I might be wrong, but i do encourage discourse in order to find out what is right. I just won't accept any kind of actual suffering as an aspect of good as i have found it's wrong to behave in such a manor, which means i tend to be paladin-y when i get excited.

As a note, i havn't told a single untrue thing, this is how i am, it makes me kind, loved and loving, and generally accepted into groups despite my overwhelming weirdness. I feel like a good person, and my rational side knows what i do it a better thing.

However;
I don't the best for humanity, i want better.

What are your thoughts on taxation

You do seem pretty paladin-y from all this (not that that's bad). But you still equated "taking advantage of people" with "punch them". Maybe you meant taking advantage in the physical sense, and if so, fine. It just seemed to me as though it was an emotional "I will punch you, evil-doer!" instead of "I will do to you what you did to others".

Even then... what's the saying? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? Be careful what you say and be sure to keep
>intervention and rehabilitation
in front of punching people.

Holy shit this thread has some weapons-grade autism

>autism
Has no meaning anymore.

I'm also writing quickly and proofreading very little, noticing bad word use, survival should be a different word.

Bait swallowed, because it's actually important;
Rent for living in the country (roads, water, air etc), if you think you shouldn't be taxed, you're a fuckwad. Doesn't violate a single basic right, which we've yet to establish in this discourse. so i will, food, shelter, safety, freedom to do what you choose as long as it doesn't step on someone else's rights, and the right to do what you want to yourself (and what needs your body to survive). those are your rights as a human in my opinion.

Also, duty of the strong to support the weak, the people making the most money should be taxed more, because their strength will be added to collective strength. No need for personal wealth when everything is equitable.

Business isn't people, never, ever, make that how you think, because it's well, not going to help anyone besides the business.

I think violence should be stopped with words first, firsts second.

It's more 'ima punch you if you don't stop 'punching' others'

>Even then... what's the saying? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? Be careful what you say and be sure to keep
>>intervention and rehabilitation
>in front of punching people.

user, that's what being a good paladin is about.

it's interesting conversation. Also autism (so much autism on my part)

But taxation is taking something against someone's will with force, and thus
>If someone is violating someone else's basic rights as a hman being (not to be killed, mistreated, forced into anything ETC), then they've waved their own rights to humanship and should be cleansed.

>extremism is always the best answer to everything
The opposite of middle-of-the-road syndrome is not the solution to it.

(I'm not the paladin guy) Now you're implying the government taxing their citizens forces them to stay there.

>duty of the strong to support the weak, the people making the most money should be taxed more
If you have to pay more taxes, what's the point? If I had to pay even MORE taxes I wouldn't be running my business right now. Tax is supposed to be the same for everyone, that's the point of it. Duty should not be assigned, it is chosen, otherwise it is a job and loses meaning. When you start telling people where their morals are you begin to infringe on their basic human right of freedom.

The quote was meant to represent that I was aware of your stance on violence only after words, I'm sorry for the confusion. I probably could have worded it better but I am tired and should probably go to bed right now.

How do you people do that?
Whenever I see someone put bottles on a conveyor the wrong way I feel nothing but contempt for humanity as a whole.

>The opposite of middle-of-the-road syndrome
>road

I am only saying that, according to the paladin, all taxation is inherently illegitimate

You mean in the country?

Nations aren't people bro.

I'm about personal behavior; the rent you pay for operating in a country and community is taxation, but currency itself is a violation of all forms of human rights, so... your half made argument (straw man) is moot,ineffectual and unimportant.

Seriously.

Money is the problem, not taxation. Look at the root of problems, not the symptoms and things become simpler. Our focus and adoration to ideal of currency (and it's use) is helping assholes take advantage of others. I'm sure if taxes were higher, operating costs would drop (in the ideal, since the world isn't we need paladins) as the cost of using and maintaining infrastructure would be covered, people would spend more (it's a weird effect, when there is more money properly being used by the government, and a focus on employee power, you get this effect where people are spending money and making money at about the same rate for basic needs, and luxuries are saved for. the usa before regan. ie; decent minimum wage, henceforth called livable wage, high taxes on the rich and a lot of public spending)

Tax is about spreading strength, one guys makes a million bucks (or million powers or whatever) it's his responsibility to support those that can't.

As much as i respect the right to freedom and choice, i also must respect a specific aspect of the problem. What is the point in obtaining power/material/money?

To have more than what you need. The act of desiring more (and i choose that word on purpose) than what you need is an inherently violent action in my views.

Hopefully that makes you understand why i say it's the duty of the strong to support and serve the weak.

I think money is inherently illegitimate, but we can't all operate at that level. Assholes who take too much should taxed yo, in the system that currency creates, taxation is a form of good/way of taking back what is being inequitably distributed.

>work for the betterment of all.
This is antithetical to nature. Biological imperative implies that one should do quite the opposite. Rather, one should work to attain the most resources for themselves/their spawn. Hurting others is simply a method of achieving said goals, and need not be morally constrained to good or evil.

>You don't HAVE to stay there!
>oh btw there is literally no place on earth not claimed by a country :^)

You and paladin guy both should think a little harder about states

The state supports you and expects servitude in return. But it's not like you had a choice in this, or like the state is anything but an ancient institution of people who maintain a monopoly on violence.
Like this guy
>Business isn't people, never, ever, make that how you think, because it's well, not going to help anyone besides the business.

You support the 'country' but not business. What exactly makes you think 'the state' is people but 'business' isn't? The State isn't providing that food, shelter, etc as rights, it's extending them as a privilege to those who serve it. Much like a business.

You don't have to go full ancapball but you haven't really considered the amoral reality of the state I think.

Does this guy count?

>one guys makes a million bucks (or million powers or whatever) it's his responsibility to support those that can't.
No it is not, that is a subjective idealized claim. An individual is under no obligation to share the fruits of their success. One could even argue that this is counter intuitive as it limits the individuals potential influence upon the world around them and the ability to pass on success to their offspring. Furthermore, this train of thoughts infringes on the individual's personal autonomy by placing constraints on their ability to reap the rewards of their gifts.

Oh and in case there is any ambiguity, needs trump rights.

Every time (need to life trumps the right to yours if you are trying to take mine, as an example of the idea)

to riff further, you right to what you create is out weighed by others need for what you've taken as profit. So i ask why shouldnt you give away what is extra to those that need it? why shouldn't you bring people up to your level of prosperity?

Taxes help with that.

You are looking at unnatural text, on an unnatural screen.

Fuck off.

And we can do better than this way of thinking.

It's so old, and outdated, and no longer necessary.

We are constently improving, so why give into evil, why not spread love?

It's the duty of the strong because they got lucky. Because the universe gave something to them, and we are past the need for tribal douchbaggery.

you aren't keeping your needs met when you buy a bigger car, and you can help another meet their if you give up a small amount. why wouldn't you?

Basically, you're an asshole if you think your gift makes you more important than anyone other person.

Natural state for humans is living in a tight knit society of 200 where you share all resources.
There's no "u" in "tribe"

Only a fool thinks he can solve the world's problems.

Hey, just so you know, paladin guy here, i think humans are better than nature.

Like in the 'we can do better than what nature says we should do'.

Since we do, every day. So thinking like you do, makes you an asshole (and i'd probably punch you if you insisted on acting 'natural' and raping someone or similar)

I also don't believe the natural order of things is the RIGHT way of doing things, just what was being done before we smarted up.

And only a miserable fool thinks -we- shouldn't try

Get back in your fucking Wheelchair.

>It's the duty of the strong because they got lucky. Because the universe gave something to them, and we are past the need for tribal douchbaggery.

You know why we have tribal duchebaggery? Because the groups that didn't have it were wiped out by the ones that did, every single time. If you think we're past it then all you're doing is setting yourself - and your group - to be destroyed by one of the many groups that conform their beliefs to reality rather than the imaginary dreamworld that exists only in their heads.

The irony should be obvious. By having the most compassionate people attempt to move beyond tribalism, the world becomes LESS compassionate as they destroy themselves by failing to practice sufficient self-preservation. But of course the goal isn't actually to make the world a better place, is it? It's to FEEL like you are.

Actually trying is the path to being a miserable fool. Did you know self-delusion strongly correlates with happiness? Apparently being blind to ones own weaknesses makes people happy. Who knew, right?

Pretending you're trying is the way to actually do it.

That's just different side to fence i suppose, it's still a shitty one though. Sounds like you gave up.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that we've past the need for tribalism and those that are enforcing it are assholes. When we remove the mentality entirely from the human lexicon, then utopia will be achieved. It's why i stand by my position, it's better to hope and work towards the better future, than to be afraid and settle for a workable one.

I'm kinda dumb like that.

Being blind to your own weaknesses hurts other people, i'd rather be trying desperately and working towards no body hurting no one, than to be stuck in the mentality of hurting people, and to be perpetuating the shitty mindset. I'm not delusional, i know what i preach is something i will never see. But my kids might, and theirs and theirs.

Fallacy in your argument; the fact that those who want to force their world view are universally more powerful than those who work together. I never said lay down arms, or never fight to protect yourself, i just said behaving in a tribalistic manor is EXTREMELY detrimental in the long term.

It's how nukes are a thing.

(also never stated that we should do away with different thinking, i simply stated the closest thing to what i believe the RIGHT way to act is, if you choose else wise and violate my morality in front of me, i probably will punch you. I honestly do think people need to have more respect and understand for each other, and to take a moment and go 'shit this'll hurt a human being' and accept that action as a bad one. and that i don't tolerate bad behaviour in my presence because i'm doing what i can to do the right thing regardless of how it hurts me or effects me. I'd rather die than do something evil, per se.)

In the end the argument is 'we are better than being shitty, and we as human beings can find a way to not be shitty if we actually tried'

Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right, and just because you're a shitty person, doesn't mean we all are/have to be.

To be so delusion filled to think that the overriding mentality of humanity should be 'fuck em, they aren't us'. But hey, wanting to maintain power often deludes you into thinking you can keep it by being shitty.

It shows that you are not only weak, but unnecessary. The strong do the hard stuff, and tough through it, only the weak accept things being shitty.

Paladin-user has to go to work now, but it was neat seeing a different side to it. Just don't be shitty to people around you, and don't tolerate shittyness, and the world WILL be a better place for it.

>you have the right to food and shelter
That's a right that depends on society being functional, and until society can function without the labor of men it's a right we have to earn. Nature puts those requirements on us and it falls to society of individuals to take care of those less fortunate: there's no virtue in forcing charity at gunpoint.

I'm going to tell you a story you probably already know. In south Vietnam, when there were Buddhist monks who burned themselves alive without flinching, calm as they sacrificed themselves with the hope that maybe, just maybe their deaths would lead to an end of the Diem's persecution of Buddhists and make the world a better place. This added to the poor view of Diem, and he was assassinated in a coup that ended with the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam after US relations soured. The horrors of communism did not end the persecution of Buddhists, and the deaths in the reeducation camps and killings that followed left an already suffering populace even more devastated. The domino theory proved not to be fallacious as more nations around fell to even more violent regimes. Those monks, through foolish idealism contributed in their way to yet more suffering in the world. Your ideals are no different. There is no Shangri-la outside your heart. Your ideals are above this world and cannot be of it. You cannot hope to carry the burden of the whole world's suffering on your shoulders alone, to pull each and every fool into awareness of the value of his fellow man. There are higher and lower natures, some quick to understand, and some slow to understand, so slow it would take lifetimes. Try as you must, but don't expect anything good to come of it.

They constantly whine about being called 'immature' and 'not grown up enough'. They're constantly quoting the OP quote - in fact, it's the only Lewis quote they know.
Y'know, basically, your average geek giving you a lecture on why things should never be 'dark'.

>No, devil's advocate.
Nice try, but we all saw your original trips.

The previous villain had more complex motivations. Weird ones, but whatever. This guy doesn't care about them, he just knows you killed his brother and now he's going to wreck you and everything you care about. It's a superpowered temper tantrum, you will never calm him down, and nothing about what he's saying is incorrect; tailor the quantity and timing of the collateral damage to ensure that the PCs start at "we would be doing the same in his position" and then get taken to "this guy needs to be stopped RIGHT NOW".

>Emperor running through the Palace of Terra shouting I'M A VAMPIRE

So what you are saying is the monks choose the wrong path to being better?

I mean they did the right thing in trying but the wrong way which was dumb, (seriously pisses me off they wasted their life like that), but to not try because you are afraid is even dumber.

the choose to do what was wrong, they didn't stand in between violence, and committed violence against themselves hoping it would work.

Those monks are disgusting and violated my morality, but that doesn't mean we as a people shouldn't try to do better, a failure on the way teaches what not to do (the actions, not mindset)

So your point is moot, people make mistakes, but that doesn't invalidate trying to do better, it only enforces it.

When you have your hands on the gun and wave it at everyone menacingly, chances are they're going to grab it when you let your guard down and shoot you back because the moment prior you were waving it at them, assuming that they don't have one of their own. It is lost on most people that they never had to pick it up in the first place, but once they do, there's no setting it down.

>Who decides right and wrong

The common law, something developed over the course of a thousand years through trial and error. Is it perfect? Much like Democracy, America, and the F-35, no, but it's currently shown to be the most successful system placed in use. More directly, the people decide what is right and wrong democratically through enacting and repealing laws as needed, setting the morality of a particular society.

You get it.

Make him a pedophile

>96 posts in
>no peter pan

Paladin user back for one more.

I will still fight for the right thing, because if i lose, i'm dead, if i win, everyone benefits. including my enemies if they happen to be alive.

Fighting for good is a really really really hard thing to do, and not everyone sees it as a burden to work towards it regardless of their own (i sure as fuck don't). I know everyone isn't the same, i know everyone values things differently.

I still want to improve on the world i love so much, so that the people i love don't have to suffer. And that's everyone. Even you user. The paladin loves you man.

>The common law

But the law also allows suffering. It allows acting against the needs and rights of others. It allows you to be an asshole.