And I understand that soldiers can have different tendencies towards good and evil, just like everyone else, but we just don't know enough about their personalities to say they are good. A medic on the battle field isn't a better person than a rifleman just because he patches people up. He's doing his job. I know with magic it could be considered a bit different, but essentially I think the Rune Knight is just doing his job on the field.
That's brilliant, that's the kind of objective-analysis you have to put up when faced with a character like that. We DON'T know anything about them, so what else to say right?
They're not evil, they're not good because we don't know enough to judge them morally.
I dont think animal's can be designated as evil, an abused animal isnt evil, its conditioned.
Animals most definately can be evil. Read my definition. There's been cases (just search the internet) where animals simply kill for fun. They just like killing stuff. They're not conditioned, their wild. I remember reading a collection of observations regarding apes and they found that quite a few apes were noted to simply beat up other apes and sometimes even kill them just because they liked it.
That's pretty malicious to me. I'll have to find the book so I can cite it.
Pitbulls can be good as well... I once stumbled over this Flash movie on DeviantArt.com and now it got a new place since it was too critical for deviantart (or whatever): pitbullproblem.tk . It... makes you think. And maybe shocks you.
Btw: Wolves used to hunt for food, killed a sheep (or whatever), the rest ran away, wolf had a meal and went back into the forest. Today the sheep are trained to stay together, the wolf goes into a frenzy and kills sheep until he is absolutely exhausted. Is he evil? Because he doesnt just kill for food? He just follows his instincts. Or did we cause such problems by conditioning our sheep to stay together? Are WE evil because of that, eventually causing their death?
Fenny may be evil because he is conscious and knowing what he does, but that doesnt mean animals in general can be good or evil. Apes may be different because they've got a sense for community and use some tools = they are, let's say, "half intelligent".
-Ham
(Btw: I love such philosiphical arguments, just the posts are too long...)
Ok, see if you can find the citation for me Ion, but I dont think animals can be evil, evil requiers sentience And, in your example, that was conditionning.
Remember that disease plays a factor too, that drives animals crazy, with pain or something, not voices in there head, but you understand what I mean.
And, Ion, if your saying we dont know enough to even make a decision, why are we posting in this thread anyway?
The animals need to be intelligent enough to know that inflicting harm or pain on someone else, especially their own kin really is against the common good of the species and ulitmately themselves, if they know that then they can become evil. alot of animals are egoistic, and that cant be called evil but its not far away tho. but most animals i know of either kills for their own survival, or their offspring, or to rid the area of something threatening. none wich i can call evil, ergo they cant be evil. since there are few monkeys in eota ill leave them out IMHO if you dont know you are doing something evil then it isnt evil, if you refuse to understand the reasons an act is evil you are either proving your a retard or you are evil.
When a male animal kills the offspring of another male of his own kind, it is for the species' best because that proves he is stronger and can defend his own offspring better. Over a long time that strengthens the race and is for it's best. Between: Animals are not sentient, they mostly act on instinct, so they definately do not know the difference between good and evil, so they cannot be NOT neutral.
Killing animals of one's own kind may seem evil to us, but it is just another control mechanism by nature. When something is too weak to survive or parents are/daddy is too weak to pretect it, then it may be better for it to die and grant other animals a better chance.
EAT OR GET EATEN, someone said. Nothing evil about that.
And before I forget it, a quotation from Shakespeare's Hamlet (Shakebeer's Hammel): "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
Sadly I can't find the papers, and it'd be hard to cite them unless you had them infront of you (they're literal papers).
Regardless, searching in and around the internet I found no evidence whatsoever that animals couldn't be evil, nor did I find any where they could be evil. Studies have been done but generally it seems like it's difficult to pinpoint what's "evil" by standard of an animal, because most animals like Hammel said (actually, all animals) act on instinct.
The problem is, our definition of an animal is:
• A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
• An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
Humans have intelligence because that is our tool for survival. Look at this definition (again)
• Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
• Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
• Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
• Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
• Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper
The first subset of the defintion of evil describes an action. To a human (non-sociopath), for a runt bear cub to be excluded from feed and possibly even killed by it's mother seems cruel, unneccessary and down-right wrong. That is because we have empathy: the bear mother doesn't. Therefore, a bear can do evil things because it does not have empathy.
But then, if a bear does something evil, does that itself make the bear evil?
Not necessarily. By human standards, yes, by animal standards, not at all. It did what it could to survive, if it sees something as unfit to survive, the bear will kill it. Therefore, if the bear were a human it'd be doing something evil, but it isn't, so we lower our standard of tolerance and empathy and it's "just helping it's cubs survive".
Therein lies the problem. If an animal willingly enjoys causing mayham, if it conscieously makes a decision to maul another bear because it dislikes the bear or feels like it, then we can assume it's an evil bear (because in the definition of evil, causing widespread mayham and being liable for blame are some of the key factors in being evil).
Animals are intelligent, but the fact is an intelligent animal in relation to a human is not easy to come by. This is simply because a wolf has no use for a gun because it has its claws, it's jaws and it's teeth. An ape will use a small array of tools to get through the day but overall, it's heavier body mass, lankier stance and hand-like feet allow it to live a moderately safe life in it's natural habitat.
The point being, an animal doesn't have to be intelligent, therefore we cannot judge an evil animal by human standards.
However. If an animal were to exhibit evil, and if it were to be consceious of its actions or to enjoy what it would be doing, then yes an animal could be evil. A pitbull who kills another dog for no reason can be considered an evil animal, because unnecessary agression is unbecoming of an animal. There is no need to do such a thing on an animal-to-animal basis.
This is not "conditioning" as the animal was not "brought up" to kill dogs. The animal itself was over-agressive, regardless of what the owners did about it, it was just a bad dog. Thus by human standards, we could easily say all animals are evil because they don't feel empathy. But at the same time, we realize animals do not have the same level of intelligence as humans because they do not need it. An animal can still be evil however, but it is on a much broader, much more simplistic basis then on the level of human evil.
That said, if we assume the Master of the Hunt is more then a hound-dog, then yes he is evil. To enjoy causing pain to another person is evil, regardless of weither you're an animal or a human, because in both cases it is un-needed agression, and harmful to the survival of the animals. Fenris therefore, would then be evil, regardless of weither he is intelligent or semi-intelligent.
I think in order for us to judge who's evil and who isn't, we'd need character bios and faction history. That's the only objective way to really determine it =/
Fenny hunts for fun and I think he has some kind of intelligence, so he is evil.
And Ion, pit bulls are not aggressive by nature, there are also "nice" ones you can let your kid play with alone... it just depends on the owner and since pit bulls don't exceed the normal standards of "dog beauty", they are mostly kept by persons who are agressive themselves and teach the dog to be like them.
When the owner would attack other humans for no ("doggish" reasons, why wouldn't the dog attack other dogs? To him it is just the same...
If you had watched the flashmovie, you might have got to know that.
I think we could continue the discussion on being good and evil in general, since that is the topic of this thread... I think that is better than letting it get totally off-topic and spammy (like the old versions ~~)
Rune Knights are not paladins, they are merely knights with some arcane magics blended in. Elves tend to mix in magic with a LOT of things.
Also, why is the Nephilim on UD and not a Fel Orc? is he a rival to Deinnov? but he dosent seem to be that powerfull.
Demons constantly have rivalries with every other one, its buried deep within demonic culture. As a result, it usualy doesn't get held against any demon for anything they did. So Ivar could potentialy be defeated along with the undead by the demons, but then return to demonic ranks with little problem.
So in short, all demons are rivals to deinnov, but Ivar thinks he can use the undead to gain enough power to directly challange him in the future.
Aero was not involved in AM's murder.
Infiltrator isn't a mercenary. I mentioned in the politics thread that elves usualy keep internal fighting to occational assassinations or small fights between houses - she is one of those who carry acts like this out for whoever she owes allegance to, as well as being a part of the national forces. She'd definatly be somewhat evil aligned, but its unlikely she's ever killed someone through her own decisions.
Fenris is definately evil, as ocean said.
Scarab is good, just nobody can get past his looks. Hell, for the most part beetles are vegitarians. Kinda like cows that developed both intelligence and defensive means ;P
And Ion, pit bulls are not aggressive by nature, there are also "nice" ones you can let your kid play with alone... it just depends on the owner and since pit bulls don't exceed the normal standards of "dog beauty", they are mostly kept by persons who are agressive themselves and teach the dog to be like them.
True. I have like, four friends with them I know they don't run around biting people's heads off like the media makes it seem. However, it is true that Pitbulls have a level of unnecessary agression that is merely in their nature. When you take a pitbull and size it up against a labrador, even if they're brought up in the same house, by the same loving owners with the same amount of respect given to both, the nature of a pitbull is to be agressive.
That is true. What's not true is all pitbulls run around killing things because they're evil animals that should be put down. No, they're just a more agressive dog. Simple as that.
On another note,
Regarding the United Creeps, why does Colossus not bring on an army of mountain giants to help him fight Therivox. If he's just one living on whatever place Therivox found him sure I can understand, but what really gets me is, why just him?
Is there more of him? Has he been excluded, if he could go back to, well lets assume there is some sort of society/social-bond between the MGs, because he's allied himself with Therivox who it must be well known isn't the kindest of creatures?
And what about Therivox. Does he have a dragon's brood, or is he himself simply one fat-ass dragon with a bunch of croonies doing his dirty-work. Because Bane's a dragon, with legs and a spear.
I think the reason he allied with THerivox, is that its his mountain, I.E Stormwail is his home mountain, and the elves pissed him off by invading and shit, so he's helping Therivox get rid of them.
That is true. What's not true is all pitbulls run around killing things because they're evil animals that should be put down. No, they're just a more agressive dog. Simple as that.
You were arguing the opposite of that argument...
Yak, is Xeldarith insane? or is that just me?
Fenris is evil! confirmed!
Scarab is good! Confirmed!
I think the reason he allied with THerivox, is that its his mountain, I.E Stormwail is his home mountain, and the elves pissed him off by invading and shit, so he's helping Therivox get rid of them.
That is true. What's not true is all pitbulls run around killing things because they're evil animals that should be put down. No, they're just a more agressive dog. Simple as that.
You were arguing the opposite of that argument...
Yak, is Xeldarith insane? or is that just me?
Fenris is evil! confirmed!
Scarab is good! Confirmed!
Did I miss something? Arcane Mistress evil? I don't think so. Maybe if I was murdered I would be pissed off and want revenge.It's not about alignment, it's personal.
You want evil? How about the fruitcake that runs around turning people into chickens and taking your fucking gold coins?
We already went over that. Revenge is an immoral thing in western society. The AM's existence is solely based upon revenge. She also deals with raising people from the dead. Western Society is death denying as well. Being an avatar of vengeance risen from the grave as well as bringing others back from death isn't really "good." And no, the ends don't justify the means.
"RAWRR" -closing lines of Big Trouble in Little China
If raising people from the dead was bad, then we'd have the Blazing Priest as evil(Theres such things as evil priests)We could get the entire creep army turning evil(raise dead upgrade) we got the dwarven black guard (Putting corspes on a pole isn't exactly good)Swapping your own life force doesn't sound like too good of a thing either(Divine Wizard).
If you see where I'm going with this, it sounds as if a hero is automatically evil if they have one necromancy spell. Our society is all about revenge.
Why do you always think of SB as evil? He is an outcast, yes, he uses the sould of the fallen, YES... but do we really know HOW he uses the souls? Or which souls he uses? He could also only consume creep souls, not evil towards the Elves. I think it depends on Yak whether he is evil. IMO we got enough evil chars on the side of Undead and Creeps.
RK, Tact, TC, Naga, maybe Swash are most likely neutral because they are soldiers fighting for their cause. Same for the DS.
Treant is full of revenge for the Elves creating minor Treants, evil? Neutral?
Ham, to be completely honest, if I ever wrote a book or something about Twilight, he'd be one of the main characters and he would go through some sort of a redeeming process. But alas, I am not writing EotA: A Novel, so that isn't the case.
And I think the Treant is evilish, but I don't know exacly how evil he is. Compared to someone like Defiler or Ascendant I don't think he would be all that terrible of a guy.
By the way, Ascendant is just a machine created for war, right?
We've already gone over what we think the dispositions of the elves are, but I'll put them up again. Most people like the RK to be the hero of the story and he's your generic hero with a sword type thing. Tact was the cold heartless leader type. Time Cleric we said was probably good, and was probably at the battle to document it. We also figured the MS was a ladies man. Y'know, despite the skin thing. We pretended he didn't have it, cause he's not supposed to.
"RAWRR" -closing lines of Big Trouble in Little China
Ascendant is similar to a machine, in that he was made. But he can think.
Fugly, he's probably the oldest person in Eota (cept maybe therivox? or a couple of nobody demons). He hates the lesser treants, because, basicly there shitty rip-offs of himself.
If someone made a clone army out of you, but they were all metaly retarted, you would be pretty damn insulted :p
I'll say though, he isnt the nicest guy on the block.
I dunno, Requiem always seem Evil to be.
Tact was more of a friendly natural leader corporal type, who would do anything for her troops, IMO :p
RK, was never the hero for me, just some random Knight, doing his duty. BTW the RK is a Spaniard, and from the Inquisition!
Ocean, it seems to be that most of the people on the UD side, arn't all that uber evil, Scylla Quietus Rue (was a little but not too much) all arnt that evil.
Creeps do have a bunch of evil heroes, but IMO have some of the most "good" heroes in Eota, GraveI and Dryad.
And, in your example, that was conditionning.
IMHO if you dont know you are doing something evil then it isnt evil, if you refuse to understand the reasons an act is evil you are either proving your a retard or you are evil.
