DM has decided to run an Evil Campaign that supposedly will last a long time. I give it a month tops...

DM has decided to run an Evil Campaign that supposedly will last a long time. I give it a month tops, but in the event that I'm wrong what are some good long term goals for Evil PCs? Aside from generic Conquer World/Become Omnipotent

lichdom
in party backstabbing
child molesting

get creative

A good retirement with the only People in the World you wouldn't harm.

Kinda like main character of Hitman 2 or even 5 if he wasn't a killer autist above all.

Shit man, be good old lawfull evil and create your own ork/elf/whatever fascist state and be the charismatic dictator and have the others suprised when the next paladin vomits when he uses "detect evil" on you.

Anything. Evil doesn't set your goals, it just defines the ways you achieve them.

Whatever you want, that's the beauty of being Evil. Just take and do whatever you want until that stops mattering. You're either left with character development or consequences to try and fix.

This. It can even be ressurecting his wife the abominable dr phibes or trying to end evil in city ras al'ghul in Batman Origins. I prefer DOOM in ruling a land as you see fit, really believing this is the best way.

>short term goal
Remember that one guy that said something bad about your hat? Fuck that guy, he's gonna die in the most painful way possible.

>medium term goal
Get yourself a bitchin' cult.

>long term goal
Achieve immortal loli form (this goal is constant through all points of the alignment spectrum).

Rescue your little sister from the guy who wants to murder her to save the world.

COLLECT ALL THE PENISES OF 7 LEARNED SAGES FOR A DARK RITUAL!

KILL ALL THE UNICORN AND STEAL THEIR HORNS TO CURE THEIR HORRIBLE EVIL PENIS DISEASE!

HOLLOW OUT A TARRASQUE AND MAKE A GIANT ANIMATRONIC MOBILE FORTRESS OUT OF ITS STUFFED CORPSE!

LOVE A LICH AND BRING THEM A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF LYCHEES!

RUN A BANK!

Punish bad people.

Ensure justice for all.

Make the world a better place.

Outlawing red colored clothing. Punishing anyone that wears red.

If you run an evil campaign id say the best way to go about it is to have the party play the acting role.

You have a world, and you want to subvert that world, you start at 0 and you slowly have to work your way to dismantling society, without getting too much attention before you can handle the smackdown that will be laid down upon you by the good guys.

Have it be a sandbox with a very clear goal and a very clear failure state that can happen rather quickly.

Make it clear that sure they can just make an army eventualyl ally with evil creatures and overrun the world.
But also show that its probably easier to just found a religion, slowly migrate to developed nations, breed a lot, subvert the local politics by styling yourself as the victim and eventually gaining control of them to do your bidding.

Another good point is to have there be "a bigger evil"; not that you have to fight evil but that when your party allies with i dont know a demon or something they still should expect to be SCREWED by said Demon, just because both are evil doesnt mean they are on the same team.

I could see a minotaur villain doing this. yeah I know bulls and the color red is a myth

Like this. Nothing else is necessary.

I'm assuming by your post, you're not the DM. In which case, why don't you ask if he had anything in mind before you go off and do your own thing halfcocked?

I've always liked the "Someone tried to murder you. If they realized you were still alive they would do anything in their power to kill you. Kill them first to do otherwise will give them time to notice and swat you."

blackmail scrapbook on every relevant person ever

I had a character try to achieve economic dominance over a land while the rest of the party went murderhobo.

He was just about to make city council when the party decided to blow up the island they were on and we were forced to leave.


Basically just pick something you want to do, mundane or not, and do whatever it takes to get it, morals be damned.

>RUN A BANK!
We want evil not eldritch monster.

Jesus that's fucking selfish.

>COLLECT ALL THE PENISES OF 7 LEARNED SAGES FOR A DARK RITUAL!
You'd think there would be only seven penises, but the way this is phrased makes me think otherwise.

To be the best cannibal chef in the world. Always working on new recipes.

Good works are always corrupted by evil means. Better that the world die than be saved by loli murder.

Destroy society through cultural and legal subversion, then slowly institute a caste system for you an your chosen people.

Get a harem.

Make alliances with evil races.

Collect important artifacts that might foil you and construct dungeons to protect them.

There was a peaceful island culture that believed that. They were horrifically genocided by the Maori.

The only determining factor in who is right in this world is who survives and spreads their genes. You're just one link in a chain of genetic success up until you.

>long term goal

How about retirement? Start to work on a proper evil lair and you'll find plenty to keep you busy.

Contract the greatest engineer in the land to build your fortress. Preferably by kidnapping his family.

Labor and material will be the primary hurdles, so choose a location to best fill those needs. Shitkicking peasants and lots of whatever supplies, preferably with no eye towards sustainability.

Keeping the labor in and the other kingdoms out is the next concern, get yourself a band of mercenaries and put them in charge of bringing in more work, meeting deadlines, and fighting off any nosy neighbors. Comfortable life with regular meals and slaves to abuse should satisfy a functional Gestapo force for your needs.

Next you want a dragon or Darth Vader type of monster, some alternative terrible enough to make folks reconsider overthrowing your goons outright. Just make sure it's busy with something other than pulling the rug out from under you.

Get all that and your Deathstar is well on it's way without the need for parental supervision, letting you get back to other evil activities.

>the whole world should die so a loli won't be unfairly killed
This is entirely retarded.
With or without the ethics. If it's so wrong to murder an innocent that the whole world should end to prevent it, that's dooming every other innocent in the world for it. It's beyond selfish, it's pants-on-head retarded.

Become untouchable. The best way to do this is to be discreet, amassing money, power, influence, and resources in quiet ways. Your reasons for this can be numerous, such as wanting your children to have the best future you can provide, simple pride, fear of death, so on and so forth. The best thing in any case is to make sure that the people who help you come to good ends, and know that you are responsible. People will bend over backwards for someone kind and charming who does them favors, because they're "a good person." Once they have this in mind, they can justify some of the most atrocious things. Alternatively, you can instill fear, though this tends to be less useful in the long term, as any weakness, real or perceived, can lead to death and defeat. This gets even worse when you consider that there's always someone that can bring you to your knees.

Rape

The character i'm currently playing is a petty thief who tries to get by; other group members include a chaotic-idiot jester who blows shit up, a serial killer who hangs victims on hooks and later feeds them to his pet lion yes and a bard who does not yet know who he's travelling with, both in and out of character.
Just play whatever you think will be fun to play. As for motivations, a cute example is trying to make the world a better place in all the wrong ways.

I actually remember a DM who had a villain use that logic. Basically he was one of those heroes that found himself in a "Your girlfriend or the world." Moments he couldn't break out of. Which then doomed the world to rotting away. The game was effectively about a bunch of heroes teaming up to save the world by ganking a guys girlfriend.

Best

So feminism?

Protecting a loved one from an obvious and objective evil like the plans of an outside force to torture and murder them is right and correct behavior. Even if they tell you that they're doing it to save the world, why should I value the life of people I don't know over a cherished family member? Empathy? It's more empathetic to care about faceless masses than my own flesh and blood? It's more right to allow her to have her life snuffed out in agony because it means people who I'll never know and will never care about me, her, or the sacrifice she'd being called to make? They get to live so that she'll be forgotten?

I have no obligations to "the human race," or its continuity. The first and foremost obligation of every human is to the ones they love. If she's willing to make that sacrifice, I'd abide by her wishes as long as I believed she was not being coerced or manipulated away from her true feelings. But if she wanted to live, and asked me to save her, even if I knew it would cost the world, letting her die would be the only thing that's "pants on head retarded."

>utilitarianism is the only morally acceptable action
>deontology being "retarded"
>wew
By that logic you could justify slavery as helping humanity as a whole, therefore being morally acceptable.

Good work user, you proved you are a good villain.

Good base himself on selfless, it is selfish to protect someone more just because of family ties. If your point was that you oppose sacrificing anyone against their wishes that would have been justified. But opposing it just because of a blood link is very reprobable.

I'd kind of say that when you are legit talking about ending the world for a loli. Who will likely die right afterwards due to starvation something has went wrong.

Not him, but how does slavery help humanity as a whole?

You know that slavery was dropped not only because of morals, but also because it got completely outdated right?

I find it funny that you are defining the murder of an innocent or the allowing of the murder of a family member as "selfless," behavior. You're undermining your own argument by defining Good as Selfless. I made it clear that if it was what she wanted absent outside influence to die to save others I'd allow it, because SHE would be the one acting selfless. But allowing her to be murdered if she didn't want that? Fuck off. A guy who comes to my house looking to kill my sister to save the world isn't a hero, he's a sociopath, especially if he's doing it for the masses and not his own loved ones.

Fighting evil for the greater good is noble, killing innocents for the greater good is evil.

Pretty much this. Large scale slavery requires that the owner pay costs for the slave and force them to work without them fucking their work up on purpose. These days you can just pay someone and tell them to be at work tomorrow.

About the only real value most people would find if slavery was legalized today would just be in the high price in owning someone. Effectively saying you are so rich that you can buy Veblen goods on the scale of people.

Maybe one of the sages is a lizardfolk, or a dragon.

>The wonders of social bonding and the extremes of self destructive behavior it can create--user.

>I want everyone, including my imouto, to end their days in a shithole, because I don't give a damn about anyone save her
Yes, call me a sociopath.

>I find it funny that you are defining the murder of an innocent or the allowing of the murder of a family member as "selfless," behavior.
It is. You are literally putting your feelings in second place to the fate of humanity. That's selfless. It is selfish to stay in your monkeysphere and put more value in a single life than a million of other people, who also have loved ones and would prefer to stay alive.

>A guy who comes to my house looking to kill my sister to save the world isn't a hero, he's a sociopath, especially if he's doing it for the masses and not his own loved ones.
Are you kidding me? How is he a sociopath to take an action he clearly doesn't want to, but needs to because he loves the world too much to let it end?

user you are wrong. Your personal feelings shouldn't factor when deciding how much a live is worth. Your only would have a point if you said you would defend anyone, but saying 'a family member' already makes you very selfish.

The fact that some people on Veeky Forums actually think that the quantity of lives preserved is the most important spectrum when defining good with no thought for methods or harm done on any other non-numerical spectrum never ceases to amaze.

>our personal feelings shouldn't factor when deciding how much a live is worth.

That's the only real deciding factor in what a life is worth though.

>Implying deontology mattered
Slavery was abolished when it became economically unviable, not when some asshole said "They are people, they are not property!".
No one gives a damn about evil until it goes overboard or touches them personally. Loli-defender is point in case.

I love being a Doomfag

Degrading the value of love and personal relationships to meaninglessness by claiming that every life is equal and thus you should be willing if not EAGER to see the people you care about die is it means a larger number of people live is fucking horrifying.

You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man? 1000 people? 100 people? 10 people? If it would save three lives should I cut my own sister's throat? What if she was pregnant, then I'd be killing two people but I'd still be saving three, so that's still the only moral and ethical choice, right?

When you reduce good to numbers, you reduce good to nothing.

I think it's less about that and more about doing so would kind of kill all of humanity including the person that is being defended. Logically speaking the correct action for the most total gain would be taking her down on the spot.

Assuming of course this was a one hundred percent known deal of this person dies or everyone else does.

That's not true, Britain abolished slavery when it was still at its economic peak.

Granted, they primarily did it for economic and military reasons to fuck over France, but doing it under the banner of moral outrage is what caused it to find support among the majority of the populace, without whom it would have been a politically untenable decision.

Only if you believe that life has no inherient value by itself, which isn't a good position.

Why is it horrifying to you saying that it's selfless to ignore your personal bias to save as much as possible?

The breaking point is saving as much as possible. Ergo if you sister was on a rope on one side almost failing on a cliff, and two other small girls were on another rope that you were holding, a good person would save the two little girls first.

>You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man? 1000 people? 100 people? 10 people? If it would save three lives should I cut my own sister's throat? What if she was pregnant, then I'd be killing two people but I'd still be saving three, so that's still the only moral and ethical choice, right?

Depends on your ethical code I would say. Personally I say killing all of humanity would be retarded and self destructive but I could see a couple million here depending on where the deaths happen at. It would also depend on the personal relationship. Do I care for my sister? Do I hate her guts? If she is pregnant and I'm saving three people are they rich and can I get money off of them? Who is making the most gain here? And how do I maximize my own?

>Degrading the value of love

Love is a cheap word that barely means anything anymore.

Everyone ending their lives in a shithole is about both quality and quantity of lives.

>You say that the answer is obvious if sacrificing my sister means a million people would be saved, if all of humanity would be saved. Whats your breaking point on that calculation, robot man?
You don't care about numbers, anyway. One million men equal one man for you, so you can't claim moral high ground; you devalue lives at least as easily as your opposition.

Okay, deontology is useful for putting a spin on something. Still a far cry from it's supposed value and goal.

Intentionally do things that set up heroes that want revenge against your party, because you want a challenge.

this, utilitarianism is a fucking warped mindset used to justify the greatest atrocities in human history, a gangraping a young orphan is justifiable because more people will derive happiness than suffering, and killing a single innocent to save two is perfectly justifiable.

the only times that utilitarianism ever forms the pretence of working is when it forces people into completely inane thought experiments which could never occur in the real world.

seriously though, if you're a true proponent of utilitarianism you'll check into a loony bin before you murder someone

>utilitarianism ever forms the pretense of working

That's more or less due to how the human brain functions however. Utilitarianism can't really work because the vast majority of people will try to increase the prestige and power of their family and the people around them. Because it pays out in the long term survival wise.

Course this in itself leads to it's own problems because it rapidly becomes parasitism off of humanity. As long as it helps yourself or your friends it's fine and not at all immoral.

That sounds pretty evil

>utilitarianism
>Personally I say killing all of humanity would be retarded and self destructive but I could see a couple million

That's like the very opposite of utilitarianism there user.

Ah, the old Sadistic Choice argument, will Spiderman save the bus full of children or Mary Jane? But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about if Spiderman will let Mary Jane die to save people who aren't even around him, who he's never met, who he will never met, when she's begging for him to save her. Also, if we're actually going by the scenario from that manga page, they won't die for years yet if not longer, and that's assuming that they will die and not find some alternative means of survival in the world after its been changed by the Apocalypse.

If you think Spiderman would take that trade, you don't know Spiderman. Or any hero in the history of literature.

Who was arguing that I was putting forth an evil sentiment by saying I would save a loved one at the expense of "the human race," as a faceless whole unless she truly desired to make that sacrifice? It's nice to know I'm more evil than this guy apparently.

I'm devaluing life as an ontological baseline of worth because Quantity As Measurement Of Good is crap. Of course life has some inherent worth, but I refuse to accept that the inherent worth of life has more weight than the relationships and emotions that are the result of living. The people you have feelings for and the relationships you have with them, should be worth more than some vague attachment to the continuity of your species. Only the innocent person themselves have the right to say that their life and their attachments are worth less than the Human Race, not some psychotic on a crusade.

here's a trolley problem for everyone

there is a trolley on a train track heading towards a rail with 4 people on it, diverting the train onto another rail will run over 4 different people

you know nothing about these people, and they appear to be of a similar age with two men and two women.

do you switch the tracks?


here's another

there is a run away tolley baring down on 4 people, diverting the tracks will cause the trolley to change direction and only kill one, however you have been told that one of the people on the track is a serial killer.

do you switch the rails?

I try to work on my puppy kicking daily. Every day I wake up and think of all the animals I could be kicking right now. Of all the suckers I can pull a con job on. Of all the people who's day I could make far worse though petty annoyances.

It makes life worth living user you should try it sometime.

Let the world end for selfish reasons.

We aren't going by any manga page user, we are talking in general.

And I didn't say anything about Spiderman, just a very common situation that actually happened to a lot of other heroes.

And yes user, the correct choice is forsaking your loved one to save the majority of people. You're nuts if you believe that it's somewhat heroic to dismiss a lot of lives because 'I don't know those guys' or forsaking everyone because 'sorry, I liked her more than I like all of you people. my bad'.

>if Spiderman will let Mary Jane die to save people who aren't even around him, who he's never met, who he will never met

That's mostly just the effect of dehumanization though. Since you can't see the person the scale of the damage feels more limited then it really is.

I think I could have phrased my second problem better.

one of the people on one of the tracks is a serial killer, but you don't know which track he/she is on

would you switch the track?

>Of course life has some inherent worth, but I refuse to accept that the inherent worth of life has more weight than the relationships and emotions that are the result of living. The people you have feelings for and the relationships you have with them, should be worth more than some vague attachment to the continuity of your species.
Which actually makes you a huge scumbag, because you believe that YOURS feelings and attachments have more value than all of those other people feelings and relationships. Each one, every single one of those other people also have loved ones, family, friends and people who love and care about them. But no, in your tunnel vision the only things that matters is YOU and your OWN feelings. This is why you are evil user.

Honestly my favorite of these problems is the one where you can hit a lever to cause a fat guy to fall down and slow down a trolley.

Then right afterwards ask "Instead of hitting a lever you have to push the man down yourself" It's fascinating to see how 90+ percent of the time people will take a 180 on the morality of the action.

I love that people keep ignoring the fact that I've said in every single post "but if SHE said she was willing to die and I was reasonably certain those were her true wishes and not the result of coercion or some other manipulation, then I would allow her to die." All of you seem to keep glossing over the fact that the scenario presented when this argument started was that a Third Party is coming to kill Your Sister because it will save Humanity. I said I would oppose that UNLESS SHE WANTED IT, but I don't think one single person calling me evil has addressed that. But I guess its just much easier to be "good," when you don't have to give a fuck about the feelings of your victim and can just focus on the motives of your opposition, right?

By the way, every argument against me keeps circling back to "More Saved = Less Evil," which I still don't accept and haven't seen a good argument for yet. Next time an Evil Warlord tries to take over your Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die. Quantity is the only metric that matters, right?

So, your feelings matter more than anyone else.
I can understand your position, user, but it's certainly not a pulpit on top of which you can condemn the evil sociopaths out to save society.

Again, yes, I think my feelings should matter more than the faceless masses to whom I have no attachment and the people who have decided Cold-Blooded Murder Is The Only Way To Save The World. But THE ACTUAL INNOCENT VICTIM'S FEELINGS matter more than mine. Its HER decision if I fight to save her or allow her to die, so long as that decision is not unduly influenced.

>I love that people keep ignoring the fact that I've said in every single post "but if SHE said she was willing to die and I was reasonably certain those were her true wishes and not the result of coercion or some other manipulation, then I would allow her to die."
Not really user, people are criticizing you for putting the life of someone with ties above all others.

If your position was "I'm against sacrificing any innocent", then it would be a justificable position. But if your position is "I'm against sacrificing my sister because she has ties with me and other people doesn't", you are indeed mislead and selfish.

And user, your last scenario is as bad as your scenario about slavery. Defeating the Evil Warlord will bring much more good in the long run than surrendering and enduring his evil.

Slavery is an inefficient system. If it were superior to capitalism, we'd absolutely be using it today.

>Again, yes, I think my feelings should matter more than the faceless masses to whom I have no attachment
Not him, but that is the antithesis of goodness. Goodness is caring about everyone and recognizing that each one of those 'faceless' have entire lives full of loves, hopes, wishes and dreams and as such should also be cherished.

You have to go deeper. Ask yourself why Jews don't get targeted in affirmative action.

>a Third Party is coming to kill Your Sister because it will save Humanity
Didn't see you deny that statement. So our choice is between overwhelming suffering for everyone, including your sister, and personal suffering of your family. All you do is postpone it to safeguard your emotions a little longer.

>Next time an Evil Warlord tries to take over your Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die
But will surrender cause less suffering? No reason to believe that, given it's an Evil Warlord.

Well, he's not aquianted with them, and has no emotional connection to them, therefore they are worthless. Only those who he has connection to have some worth, and these two groups of people (connected and unconnected) are completely separate entities. That's just tribalism.

Hey so uh, if the world dies how does the loli not die too anyway?

>a gangraping a young orphan is justifiable because more people will derive happiness than suffering,
Net total human suffering, user. The gangrape does not make the criminals happier beyond a temporary rush. Allowing it also encourages more of it in the future. You're just shitty at seeing the logical causality and mistake that for meaning that utilitarianism is bad.

>Well, he's not aquianted with them, and has no emotional connection to them, therefore they are worthless.
Yes, I can see that user. But that doesn't change that it's against goodness however. Goodness requires a much higher level of thought and empathy.

Spiderman did sacrifice his future child to save his aunt may. But this is largely regarded as a dumb move and unintentional character assassination.

You're assuming that I don't recognize those things because I don't consider them more important than my own? Or more importantly, that I don't consider them more important than those of an innocent person that I care about, and for whom I would sublimate my own wishes?

Why is it "good," to treat all innocents equally and "evil," to show favoritism to an innocent that you care about? Are you telling me that if some guy came to me and said "I'm going to murder your sister to save the world," and I stopped him I would be evil but if he said "I'm going to murder some random person to save the world," and I stopped him I'm good because I treated all innocents the same? Can you not see how absurd that is? "The thing that makes you evil is the fact that you love somebody. If you didn't love anybody you could still condemn humanity to extinction by not allowing a murder, but because you're doing it for the sake of ideology its not evil."

>Kingdom you should tell the local paladins that the only Good choice they can make is to surrender peacefully because fighting will just cause more people to die. Quantity is the only metric that matters, right?

WW2 France?

>You're assuming that I don't recognize those things because I don't consider them more important than my own? Or more importantly, that I don't consider them more important than those of an innocent person that I care about, and for whom I would sublimate my own wishes?

So if you recognize them and still considers yours to be more important, just because they are yours, then you are indeed selfish which isn't good.

>Why is it "good," to treat all innocents equally and "evil," to show favoritism to an innocent that you care about?
Because evil is about selfishness and goodness is about selfless. You are literally saying that someone deserves more than others just because they had the priviliege of being born in closer to you. That's unfair with all those who didn't.

>Are you telling me that if some guy came to me and said "I'm going to murder your sister to save the world," and I stopped him I would be evil but if he said "I'm going to murder some random person to save the world," and I stopped him I'm good because I treated all innocents the same?
Not really, because the reasonings are different. One is for the love of every little life, the other is for the selfish love of your own relationships. If you defended your little sister not because she was your sister, but because you believe in defending all life then it would be justified.

> Can you not see how absurd that is? "The thing that makes you evil is the fact that you love somebody. If you didn't love anybody you could still condemn humanity to extinction by not allowing a murder, but because you're doing it for the sake of ideology its not evil."
Are you being disingenous on purpose user? In which way did you miss the point that intent matter?

It's like giving to charity because you want to help poor people or giving to charity because you want popularity. It's about intent user.

You don't recognize those things, yes. From your standpoint, people who do not evoke sufficiently strong positive emotion from you are not people, not a collective of persons as valid and unique as you, but something closer to a collective of animals: alive, feeling, capable of communication but ultimately irrelevant beyond being useful (or detrimental) to you. You deny yourself the capacity to recognize their feelings as what they are: as valid as yours.

>but also because it got completely outdated right?

American prison population existing as a cheap labor force challenges that.

Pretty sure that makes you the good guy user. Good intentions don't justify evil actions.

Prison labor is completely different from slavery user.

Also most of the profits in prisons come actually from the grant system.

Conquer the world, destroy all inherently evil races, unite everyone and then conquer and colonize Hell.

Sure, that sounds like some pretty good guy stuff, but not everyone is gonna be willing to be united, so you're gonna have to force it on them, Conquest Paladin style.

And you have pretty bitching mats for badass speeches.

So the only thing that matters in good vs evil is intent, and your actual acts don't matter. The Ends Justifies The Means is a Good philosophy? Horseshit.

Also I really feel like I need to come back to this point: I've said at every step that I would sublimate my wishes for the wishes of my sister BECAUSE of my attachment to her. If she wanted to die of her own free will to save the world, I would let her. And yet if she did not want to die to save the world, and so I saved her, I'm evil because my motive either way is my love for her outweighing my love for The Human Race? I am selfish if I save her from being murdered when she wants to live, and therefore I am evil, but if I let her die to save the world because I care more about her desires, what am I then? Still evil because "selfishness," was my motive either way? That makes no sense. By that logic you can never allow your attachment to another human to sway a decision you make in any way, and can only ever decide things in terms of the good of your species as a whole, or else you are evil.

So lets say I am saving an innocent from being killed whom I don't care about because I believe all innocents should be equally protected. Lets also say he WANTED to die because his killers said his death would save the world. Based on your logic, by defying his wishes AND condemning the human race to destruction I am still good, and the reason I am good is because I don't actually care about him personally in any way, and my only investment in the situation is my code of protecting all innocents equally? This is a completely broken way of thinking.

...

You're making an absolutely ridiculous leap by claiming that valuing your own feelings and the feelings of your loved ones over the feelings of others to whom you have no personal connection is the exact same thing as considering all people you don't know personally to be no more than animals who are irrelevant beyond their worth as tool/resource. Like, wow, even by Veeky Forums standards that's a leap.

Shirou is a case study in how to paladin so hard it breaks the universe

This is now a Lawful Good thread

...

>So the only thing that matters in good vs evil is intent, and your actual acts don't matter. The Ends Justifies The Means is a Good philosophy? Horseshit.
Except user that nowhere was said 'the end justifies the means', just that posture matters a lot in what you are doing. Posture do affect your actions, but nowhere was said that your actions by itself were worthless.

Notice that I said justificable and not good. Because even if you desire was to protect every single life, it would still be bad for humanity as a whole. But it wouldn't actually fall on the rule of evil which requires selfishness, just tragic misguidement.

>Also I really feel like I need to come back to this point: I've said at every step that I would sublimate my wishes for the wishes of my sister BECAUSE of my attachment to her.
Which isn't a good metric when adding value upon people.

>. By that logic you can never allow your attachment to another human to sway a decision you make in any way, and can only ever decide things in terms of the good of your species as a whole, or else you are evil.
Actually yes, you shouldn't let attachment cloud your decisions user. Goodness relies on treating everyone equal. Like organizing a tourney and giving a prize to the one who deserves it instead of your close friend. It makes completely sense, because you aren't using a complete unfair weight to judge a situation. Like I said before, it's lowering others lives simple because they weren't born close to you.

>So lets say...
You don't understand what justificable means do you user?

It means that personally it's understandable your position, but that doesn't mean it's a correct position. Your interest can be good but still foolish.

However acting by selfishness is always evil. That is the point that somehow you haven't gotten it yet. Somehow.