[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.48414522 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
Thoughts on "grey morals", /tg/?

>> No.48414539


Depends on the setting.

Perfectly reasonable in 40k or Lovecraft. Less so in Greyhawk.

>> No.48414552

>Thoughts on "grey morals"
An excelent, valid, and logical way to do good, but a terrible, foolish way to BE good.

>> No.48414560

There's no such thing as "doing evil to do good."

There's good, and there's evil. And if you think you can justify evil with good intentions, or that you need to do evil to do good, then you're not doing good at all.

You've just given up.

>> No.48414565

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
These can be fine because a lot of real life people think this way when they do the stupid shit that they do. A lot of evil people don't realize or refuse to believe that they're the ones who are wrong. That lack of empathy and awareness is why they went down the wrong path in the first place.

>> No.48414573

Only works when it's very hard to determine a right or wrong answer to a problem. If you just make everything grey than it doesn't really have the same impact anymore. At that point you can just not do nothing, it matters about the same either way.

>> No.48414578

Is it being used to justify edgelordism? Then no.

Does it actually make logical sense to third parties, even if they don't agree with the methods? Then probably.

>> No.48414604


>Moral absolutism


>> No.48414622


You can do evil for the greater good, but that doesn't necessarily justify it nor does it make that evil good, it just means you chose to do evil to prevent a worse alternative to any other course of action, including inaction.


>moral relativism
>"it's evil but not under x, y, z conditios, or if b... or c... or what if d?..."


>> No.48414642

Stepping on a butterfly is bad, since they don't hurt anyone and they're pollinators, etc.
In fact, there are plenty of bugs that aren't actually pests, but a valuable part of the ecosystem.

>You should never go outside your door, not even to save anyone's life: if you step on a bug, it will negate all the good you ever do.

>> No.48414654

Hey man, they pay me to go kill the wizard saving the world from magic plague, I tell them to fuck off so I won't die. They pay me to go kill a dozen children, yeah, okay, I'll do it. They want me to kill the good mayor of bumfuckville who is bringing the economy back and making it great again, I'll gut him. Who cares about morals. Leave that for the philosophers. You should just worry about not getting burned alive by some shitty fucking mage somewhere.

>> No.48414666

>compromising your morals at any point

>> No.48414747

Grey morality is a dumb esoteric concept.
You either have morals and rationalize past them for a greater good, or you don't and you merely act in self interest.

>> No.48414748

My chivilrous brother of african descent.

Settling for "the best of a bunch of bad choices" is just taking the easy way out. Sure, a good solution to the problem at hand might not be evident, but that's the thing about good. Good takes effort. It's easy to give up on some to save more. It's easy to turn your back to crime if it helps your family out. It's easy to look at injustice and say "I can turn this to my advantage".

Compromising your morals is always easy. But it's never right.

>> No.48414771

I don't feel strongly about them. However, if I've gone through a massive ordeal to accomplish a goal, and get any of the phrases above from someone, they're getting killed.

>> No.48414783

genocide is evil, genocide of kender is good and just.

>> No.48414796

That's not genocide. It's pest control.

>> No.48414956

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"

These are fine if used properly. They can be a great setup for a villain who the heroes can empathize with, but as a moral for the heroes it's limited to darker works. It's really easy to use poorly though, so a lot of times when it shows up it seems bad. Can be used to good effect though.

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"

This is actually the worst thing ever and I hope it dies in a fire never to be remembered.

>> No.48414995

>moral relativism
>"it's evil but not under x, y, z conditios, or if b... or c... or what if d?..."
Yes that's the gist of it, what's your point?

>> No.48414999

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Can't remember the last time I committed X, m8.

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
Don't worry, I intend on doing the same thing.

>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
Will yours do?

>> No.48415038

> "If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
I always hated this. Played a campaign where the BBEG said that when we cornered him and I didn't hesitate to skewer him. Might as well just kill them to keep them from doing anything worse than they've already done.
Grey morality is fine but that argument always irked me.

>> No.48415076

So, you're not an adventurer, you're a mercenary, or an assassin. And are bound to get a paladin on your evil ass.

>> No.48415094

>implying he wouldn't gut the paladin, too
>implying he hasn't also killed a fuckton of evil

Guy's just trying to get paid. He doesn't care.

>> No.48415101

Sounds pretty neutral evil to me.

>> No.48415135

>alignment changes dynamically with actions
>he's legit TN because he does just as much good as evil

And self-defense against a good-aligned creature isn't evil. Anyone who says otherwise is a dumdum.

>> No.48415183

Being neutral doesn't work like that. If you murder a princess because you got paid, and then go save a princess because you got paid, you're still evil. Even assuming those are equal acts, it's clear that he's only in it for the money, and doesn't care about the actual actions he's doing.

Being a greedy sociopath is specifically Evil territory. True neutral won't murder somebody else for solely their own benefit.

>> No.48415201

That only works if his motivations alter from being altruistic to selfish.

This guy is being a selfish dick no matter what his actual actions are.

>> No.48415215

He isn't greedy. It's his job. That's like saying the guy working in retail is greedy because he needs the money. Big shock, you need money to buy things you can't produce yourself.

>> No.48415216

No, his character acts purely in self interest, no matter what. Neutral evil is looking out for number one. He seems pretty neutral evil to me.

>> No.48415237

Being paid to murder is evil. Alignments aren't as complicated as people try to make them out to be.

>> No.48415269


Aside from the first one, they all make sense as villainous motives in the context of the character in question. Remember that every villain is the hero of their own story.

>> No.48415275

>People who view morality as a strict universal binary instead of a series of competing value-systems
>People who know so little about metaethics they aren't even aware they have a value-set, and just take their cultural norms as universal truths
>People who think that acknowledging the above makes you a baby-fucking mass murdering rapist monster.

>> No.48415295

>A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Sounds neutral evil to me.
Sounds like you like moral ambiguity.

>> No.48415306

>Trump meme

Back to /pol/ you fucking crossboard retard.

>> No.48415307

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Fucking moronic, kill this person at once and then fail to become just like him just to prove him wrong, and that his point is senseless. Unless you need to commit some horrible atrocity to kill him forever, like killing an entire country full of people whom he'd implanted fragments of his soul into to obtain immortality, and you are literally only killing him out of revenge, when he's no longer any threat to anyone, then he has no fucking leg to stand on, kill him immediately.

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
Can be justified, if they're honest, and can give proper justification for everything they've done, then you can let them go. Unfortunately most things that do this little line here make all the characters conveniently forget one genuinely horrible thing that this person did out of sheer plot convenience. Remember when Illidan burned down that night elf village at the beginning of Frozen Throne, killing all of its denizens, and then later said "EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE I HAVE DONE FOR LOVE! I NEVER WANTED TO HURT GOOD GUYS", yeah bullshit you killed innocent people chasing demonic power you fucking moron. How about when Kill La Kill tried to white wash Satsuki Kiruin in spite of the fact that she had one of her generals cold bloodedly murder a teenaged student, and then strung up his lifeless corpse outside the school as a warning. Pretty hard to whitewash that, so it was just conveniently forgotten. Again, good if done right, usually shit.

>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
Is the person insane? Did what they did actually make the world a better place in a way you can now agree was actually ethical? If not, kill the bastard. We could technically advance medicine hundreds or thousands of years if we started performing mengele style experiments. Would this make the world better? Yes. Does that mean we should do it? No, it's unethical. Kill the bastard.

>> No.48415308

And the guy working in retail doesn't murder people for it. If your job involves killing children and you see nothing wrong with that, you're evil.

If he isn't greedy, then why does he feel the need to accept every job? I'm guessing assassinations tend to pay a lot. Would he really waste time killing children if people weren't paying him a lot of money for it?

If he doesn't care as much about the money and is charging a pittance for assassinations, why not just get a normal job? If he was true neutral, it'd be far easier to get a job as a courier or a spy. Even simple thievery would involve less killing of innocents and allow him to make money, and has the added bonus of not drawing as much ire from paladins.

He is Evil. He isn't just trying to get by. He has a need for a lot of money, or he's simply a sociopath that enjoys killing. Either way, having no qualms about hurting innocents puts him squarely as Evil. Burning down an orphanage and then killing a necromancer doesn't balance that out, even if you only did it for the money.

>> No.48415323

>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
Was there actually an impending crisis that could only be averted through misdeeds? Did he actually act to the best of his ability to minimize harm through what he did? Or did he see something bad happening and without telling fucking anyone about it immediately decide to take fate into his own hands and decided all by himself who deserved to die so that the rest could survive? If it's the second one, fucking kill the bastard. We appreciate you saving the world, but maybe do it in a way that isn't fucking retarded.

>> No.48415364

When the results of the "good" way are worse than the "bad" way, you should consider if the bad way is really all that bad compared to the alternative.

>> No.48415387

what about a villain that fully believes he does good and can't understand why the PCs are trying to stop him

>> No.48415390

Dark Heresy campaign has gotten to a point where we've decided that anyone who says "You DONT UNDERSTAND!" probably needs a bolt/sword in the skull to cure their insanity.

>> No.48415426

The first of these is always the worst. Killing someone very rarely makes you become like them. While it can affect someone psychologically, it's always a dumb thing that's usually only done by the villain as a last-ditch move to get the hero to spare him.

As for the rest, they can work fine in domr settings. People genuinely do have different ideas on what would make the world better. The trouble is that people seem to mistake black morals for grey ones.

Take, for example, a scientist orchestrating events to cause a series of wars and cull the population because wars bring scientific advancement and overpopulation is a problem.

Then, for comparison's sake, have a charismatic leader who has gathered many people from all over the land to form a new kingdom, with very strict laws and rules compared to most of the outside. He's working to expand his territory because the population is growing, but he isn't really oppressing people and the kindom is functioning.

The first is the sort of thing that's rather clearly wrong, though the attempt is made to paint it as grey if the villain continues to make excuses and insist what they're doing is right as they nuke the planet.

The second is something less overtly sinister, the sort of thing where morality is actually grey. It brings into question freedom vs. security, and can actually have sides to the issue without either being right or wrong.

That's sort of the issue I have with 'grey morals'. When people take more black and white issues and try and pretend they're all grey, it just gets annoying. Obviously, every situation is different, and discussing objective morality is a crapshoot at the best of times, but if you want to have grey morals, you should at least try and make both sides seem like they're reasonably trying to do the right thing.

>> No.48415468

There's not a damn thing wrong with it.

On the rare occasion I actually play D&D, paladins are a banned class and good is a restricted alignment. Alignment is stupid, and people do nothing but use it as an excuse to be the fun police.

>> No.48415475

>There's something loose in the lower decks of the ship, sir. It's- It's killing us! Jettson the lower decks, or it'll kill everyone! CUT US LOOSE!
>A quarter of the ship are working in engineering. Do you sever the links to the lower decks and consign everyone there under your command to death, or try and see what's going on with armed security forces?

>There's a nuclear device in the city, Sir. And there's enough of them guarding it with their lives that we won't get to them before the safeteys disengage and they can trigger it. They're going to blow up the entire district if we don't strike now. There's still a dozen civilian hostages in the building, but we can level the building and destroy the bomb with an airstrike. There may be some collateral damage.
>Blow up the building and kill some civilians, or try to go in protecting the hostages and risk the whole district?

>He laughs at you, dropping his gun into the rain-soaked street. You can't hear him over the thunder, but you know he's taunting you at managing to kill the witness you were sworn to protect. It can't be traced back to him, and you know he'll get away with it, and start killing again. He'll never get imprisoned. Their blood will be on your hands if you don't do it. You've leveled your own police-standard issue piece to his head. How easy would it be to say he was killed while fighting back?

>> No.48415480

Grey morals only work if the GM accepts that there's no right (or wrong) answer.

I like grey morality, but I also tend to let my PCs choose whatever they want without coming down on them like a ton of bricks; as long as they can explain their reasoning, it's good.

Sure, bad things can still happen, and if they fuck shit up it has consequences. But no punishing them like they made the 'wrong choice' or some shit. The point of grey-grey is that there isn't one.

>> No.48415499

>Alignment is stupid
>good is a restricted alignment

So you admit the alignment system is fucked up, and yet you seem to be using it anyway and just banning good? That seems a bit silly.

If anything, I would just say to toss out alignment altogether. If you're playing 4e or 5e, you don't even have to get rid of Paladins, as they're not alignment restricted in those editions.

>> No.48415508

Dependant upon the tone of the game.
You don't murder your enemies in Saturday Morning Superheroes.
You do so with great gusto and enthusiasm in the 40K RPGs.

>> No.48415512

>being either a moral relativist or a realist
Shiggy, I sure hope /tg/ grows up at some point.

>> No.48415513


I have a player who keeps trying to derail stuff like this. My campaign was about the PCs being on the evil side of a conflict, but my plan was that they would eventually flip sides once they realized the rebels were in the right.

That didn't happen, because of one asshole.

First, he refused to talk to the prisoners. He gagged them and got people to set guards. Whenever they took someone alive, he would kill them after an interrogation and refuse to let them get a word in the edgeways. He DELIBERATELY ignored scenes like a peasant woman with a starving child and got the party to just go and buy more shit instead.

Like, I get that he didn't want to do that. But he basically spoilt half the campaign for everyone. It was obvious he was FUCKING DOING IT ON PURPOSE, because when the rebels outright sent the PCs evidence, HE BURNED THE EVIDENCE.

Some level of moral ambiguity has to be there, man. Otherwise, like this campaign, it just becomes a series of increasingly violent and depressing hack-and-slash encounters. By the end, when they laid siege to the last free city, the PCs just rode in and killed everyone alongside demon-possessed knights and flew the not-Nazi flag from the palace.

Like, this wasn't the campaign I wanted to run but I had to run it anyway.

>> No.48415523

Alignment is unforunately tied to game mechanics, so I can't get rid of it without changing the rules. But advertising the fact that retarded smitefags and their lackeys are not allowed dissuades a really toxic crowd from applying for my games.

>> No.48415528

a villain who has an alien mindset or is massively delusional can work. Some sort of outsider who calmly explained why your world is horrific and needs to be destroyed for example could make for an interesting villain.

>> No.48415539

Utilitarian morals are good, but often end up being about making other people be the ones who actually make the sacrifices for the greater good.

Avoiding that double standard is the line that one crosses between villain and hero in my books.

>> No.48415576

>Alignment is unforunately tied to game mechanics, so I can't get rid of it without changing the rules.

A handful of spells isn't really a good case for that. Alignment really doesn't factor into much even in older editions. Banning good is probably the most roundabout solution ever, and it really makes me question your understanding of the whole issue

>> No.48415579

>not anything personal. Your world is on collision course with ours. Either you all die, or you AND all of us die. What would you do to save your own people?

>> No.48415586

I save everyone.

>> No.48415613


>> No.48415630

>Seal all the bulkheads, teleport everyone out

>Detonate an EMP overhead to disable the electronics, then rescue the hostages

>Cast Zone of Truth and Raise Dead

>inb4 but you don't have access to those things! Your solutions fail because I'm changing the scenario so you can't succeed!

>> No.48415656

Not enough of the scenario has been fleshed out, so it hasn't been established you can do those things.

So it's irrelevant whether or not you can or can't in this situation. It boils down to this. In a situation were the only feasible option is sacrifice some to save many, and there are no other options, would you do it?

>> No.48415666

I save everyone

>> No.48415676

We find a way!

This isn't vidja.

>> No.48415681

Now you're modifying the stated situation. The stated situation is that you can't. For whatever reason, you can't. What do you do?

>> No.48415688

Satan to the rescue!

>> No.48415696

Sacrifice myself. Save everyone.

>> No.48415701


i'm not guy you're talking to, but depending on the campaign you either save as many as you can and then make peace with the cost of your actions, or call the GM a goatfucker for going out of his way to construct a no win scenario.

>> No.48415704

Not an option.

You have five seconds to press the big red button, or do nothing. Those are your two options. Nothing else exists.

What do you do?

>> No.48415726

No win scenarios exist in real life though. Pbviously not often in this dichotomous way, but plenty of situations in my own life have led me to realize the choice is between a lesser of multiple evils. If there is even a choice at all. Negative situations surprise you, and then you're left with figuring out how to make the best of it.

>> No.48415745

Exactly. This isn't real life. This is a game. I'm sorry for any losses you've had in your life anon, but that's part of what makes fantasy so great. It gives you a place where at the end of the day, you can be the hero who finds that third solution so nobody has to die.

That's why I save everyone.

>> No.48415767

simply put murder the fucktard, grey morals are for those on the black scale trying to be a complete dick about it.

>> No.48415772

Obviously, but something bad has to happen for the stakes to be raised in the first place. It's why so many fantasy stories start with your quaint little village being destroyed. There has to be some amount of loss involved for it to mean anything.

Also, just so you don't think I'm so kind of scarred autist, I was more talking about shit like when you get a pop quiz and you have the choice of skipping class or trying not to flunk the test too hard.

>> No.48415775

Winners write history, so everyone I've killed was irredeemably evil.

>> No.48415783

all morals are grey

>> No.48415796

Wrong, scholars write history. They decide who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. So be nice to them, or they'll make you look like an illiterate Chad with bad breath for the rest of time.

>> No.48415804

>Sociopath meme
>Moral relativism meme
Sure is not understanding what either of those things are in here.

>> No.48415816


In what situation exactly does a DM say "you can't, under any circumstances, save everyone"?

Either come up with circumstances for it, or don't bother treating it like a scenario that exists. Give me access to enough caster levels, and I can save everyone in this world.

>> No.48415825

Ah le epic try to save everyone but more people die as a result belief

If you're inclined to do good, it's the opposite of what you said.

It's far harder to compromise your morals

>> No.48415832


like I said, depends on the setting. If it's something like dark heresy you do what you can and possibly role play dealing with the guilt, but if it's something like a lighthearted mutants and masterminds game than you call him a goatfucker for thrwoing a convoluted no win scenario at you out of left field.

also regardless of tone if you do come up with a clever 3rd option and he blantly changes things up so you faill you call him a goatfucker regardles.

Oh and if he makes the paladin fall i'm fairly certain it's justifiable homicide.

>> No.48415856

>There has to be some amount of loss involved for it to mean anything.

There's a lot more than lives that can be lost anon. The happy starting village being cursed with a drought is just as valid as razing everything with a dragon, if not more so.

With the latter, your hero is out for revenge. They have no home to go back to, no family to encourage them. If that drive and anger fades, there's no real consequence left for them. Everyone they cared about is already gone.

With the former, the village is still alive, but dying. The hero can go back at any time, to see the faces of their family and remind them why they're fighting. The drive is always there, because if they fail the quest then the consequences are clear. Everyone they care about is depending on them.

While this gets skewed a bit once you bring the kingdom at large into things, the point is that you don't have to kill people to ensure things have weight.

>> No.48415867

Why not trying to save others from the same fate? I'm obviously not arguing that every campaign/story regardless of tone should have shit like this. Just that it's perfectly within reason for some to be like that, and it can actually be interesting and engaging for the players to make those choices.

>> No.48415909

It can be interesting to be faced with those circumstances certainly, however, the key is for it to not be contrived.

The situations where you have 5 seconds to choose whether or not to press a button or two different values of people die aren't very interesting or engaging.

>> No.48415926

I know, and I would never present that situation in a game. It's just a simplified version of a potential no win scenario because it's awkward to have to explain all the setting and context of the actual situation that might surround it in a game. Just boiling it down to the purely moral/ethical/emotional response and ramifications for the sake of an argument about those things.

>> No.48415936

Everyone dies on the liferafts.
EMP tech only exists from nuke format. City dies.
It's a modern setting. Speak with dead is inadmissible as evidence and your pet zombie is also not allowed. Bad guy kills and rapes your family then vanishes overseas.

>> No.48415943

>The heavens and hells are false constructs of false gods.
>I will empty the heavens and scour the hells, and all the dead together will pass to the true afterlife, as the Creator intended.

Is this lawful neutral? Is this right? Wrong?
Assuming that they're correct.

>> No.48415969

How about instead of "If you kill me, you'll be just like me!", it's "If you kill me, your treasure will be destroyed!"?

>> No.48415970

>Your solutions fail because I'm changing the scenario so you can't succeed!

Glad we got that out of the way

>> No.48415976

Yeah, all of those situations are direct results of despair. Chasing after good without possessing the capabilities to achieve it.

>> No.48415981

Okay this is becoming a tad ridiculous
>I have a forcefield!
>too bad. I brought my dinosaur WHO EATS FORCEFIELD DOGS!

>> No.48415991

That's the way to get the video game babies to play along, sure, but the former statement is something I think needs to be asked of murderhobos once and a while.

Two people are murdering people who disagree with them. Both sides think they are right and have to do it see their perfect vision of the world come out on top. What, if anything, is actually giving you a moral high ground? If nothing, how do you come to terms with that?

>> No.48416008

At key points of the campaign dilemnas can be pretty interesting, especially if couched right.

One good one is handing a bad guy over to an indisputably evil ally for "questioning" instead of going to the proper authorities about it, who aren't well equipped to handle the villain. Or if dead, extracting things from his body.

>> No.48416009

>>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
It's still killing - you aren't actually saving anyone.

Still, well constructed grey morals are better than pure black or white morals.

If a grey moral character was an antagonist, i'd still kill him though.

>> No.48416017

>"it's evil but not under x, y, z conditios, or if b... or c... or what if d?..."
Yes, pretty much.
Except you consider euthanasia as completely equal as murder for money.

>> No.48416023

>>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
>>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
"You're doing it wrong, and that's why..."
>>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"

>> No.48416038

>killing in order to protect your wife and child is evil
This is how stupid you sound.

>> No.48416065

>you hate the evil overlord because he killed your father
>he was actually an adventurer at the time, your father was an evil overlord
>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
>you see his child in the back room

>> No.48416083

Might makes right, anon.

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"

I say "suits me fine", then kill you. No, wait, I kill you, then say "suits me fine".

>"I did what was needed to be done!"

I dispense the punishment, then say "So did I"

>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"

You wouldn't mind me punishing you, if that's the case.

>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"

That's right. Prepare to be sacrificed.

>> No.48416092

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Virtually never true, and some executions need to happen. The vast majority of them should be done by law. MAYBE you arrest rather than kill him when he surrenders the first time- but if he tries to pull a fast one, blow his head off.
>"I did what was needed to be done!"
Ambiguous situation. Is he actually right?
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
There are legal ways of doing that, though they are admittedly Really Damn Hard.
Also an ambiguous situation.
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
This is a hardball case. If he is actually true and it comes down to pick forty people out of fifty to live or risk them all dying 50% of the time, I won't begrudge him for putting me in the ten- though I hope he has the decency to pick himself, too.

Moral ambiguity exists, in the sense that it's hard, extremely hard, to see the long-term effects of your decisions and pick a least-bad-case scenario. That doesn't mean everyone's entitled to be Hitler.

>> No.48416096

This is chaotic from perspective of false gods and lawful from perspective of the True Creator, same with "Right" and "Wrong".

>> No.48416098

>Do I have any idea of what might be in the lower decks? Can enough of the engineering crew be rescued without risking the threat spreading to the rest of the ship?

>Do I know any shortcuts in the building the terrorists don't know about? Will the terrorists necessarily activate the bomb as soon as it's armed, or will they try to make demands first?

>What's stopping me from arresting him on suspicion of murder? If this crime can't be traced to him, what crimes can?

>> No.48416101

Honestly, not really. Why would someone who knows you have a teleporter tell you to sacrifice everyone? Answer: in the actual scenario an ancient evil is on board turning everyone into biocircutry and the whole ship would have died if the commanding officer didn't jettison the engineering bay.

Nukes are traditionally shielded from EMP.

When has someone in a noir story had access to raise dead?

Well, I actually rolled a 1d100 for each, but you just failed to hit the target DC each time. If you roll the dice to go for a better option and fail, that's your own fault, isn't it?

>> No.48416117

>shoot him
>shoot his son

>> No.48416141


>Do I have any idea of what might be in the lower decks? Can enough of the engineering crew be rescued without risking the threat spreading to the rest of the ship?

Listen to the transcript, and make your own decision.

(Fleet Command): Research module? This is the bridge. We’ve got power
fluctuations in your area and the hangar bay. Are you running any tests?

(Research Team): Not that I know of, bridge. Let me che-

(Fleet Command): What was that? What’s going on down there?

(Research Team): Uhh don’t know … give me a second. We were examining surface
material from the alien probe and …

(Fleet Command): What is going on? Now we’ve got biohazard warnings going
off across the lower decks!!! What have you done?

(Research Team): Something’s loose! It’s killing us!! You’ve got to save the
rest of the ship. Jettison the lower decks!

(Fleet Command): Kharak forgive us! Bridge to all stations: Emergency
jettison protocols engaged!

(Research Team): CUT US LOOSE!!!

>> No.48416144

>Not shooting him and raising his son
It's like you don't want someone to put you back in line when you become an Evil Overlord.
Or, better yet, not becoming an Evil Overlord at all because you're raising your son, unlike your deadbeat mother.

>> No.48416225

>>Do I know any shortcuts in the building the terrorists don't know about? Will the terrorists necessarily activate the bomb as soon as it's armed, or will they try to make demands first?

No shortcuts, and they might make demands, but not ones you can fulfil. You are now being offered a van-based microwave gun that would be able to sear the skin off everyone inside and neutralise them long enough to take them down without casualties, but the hostages would be alive, though! They might need skin grafts after.

>What's stopping me from arresting him on suspicion of murder? If this crime can't be traced to him, what crimes can?

Not the one where he killed your partner, there was a mistrial and he got away free. The gangland killings were inconclusive as he didn't do it personally. He's always slipped away, that bastard - he has something on the judges, or got some leverage on the courts. There's no certainty in the law any more. Would you be able to live with yourself if he gets away and kills again? Would you be able to live with yourself if you take the law into your own hands? It's just you, him, and the night.

>> No.48416308

>you just failed to hit the target DC each time

The target DC for having teleporters, having EMPs, and having magic?

It almost sounds like you're pulling stuff out of your ass to justify a contrived scenario

>> No.48416388

>BBEG tries to convince you to join his side
I hate this shit. It's either I find your ways a tad too evil for me or I'm getting pay to kill your ass.

>> No.48416416

In that case, cutting loose is probably the right call.

If the courts approve the use of this weapon, and if we're able to compensate the hostages and their families after they're rescued, then I see no reason not to use it.

The other scenario's a bit trickier. I'd yell at him to come closer, so I can hear his taunting. If he gets close enough, I'll offer him a deal: work with the police to take out his network, and the police won't press murder charges. (We'd nail him on tax evasion). If he stays away, I'll shoot him in the spine.

>> No.48416446

i'm of a slightly different opinion to you.
i have what i refer to as the BBEG full retard horizon, which is after a certain point it literally does not matter how much he begs or pleads, hes an evil shit who did a bunch of evil shit and moral relativism won't save him getting gruesomely dismembered.
usually its after the 2nd or 3rd group hes sent after your ass without any attempts to use diplomacy what so ever.

>> No.48416477

Because teleporters exist in all settings with space, like star wars and Homeworld:catacylsm.
Because most military nukes are shielded from EMPs.
Because these sorts of scenarios don't happen ALL THE GODDAMN TIME in noir settings, and noir settings don't tend to have magic.

I like a happy ending as much as the next guy, but sometimes, if you try to take the "brilliant" solution that's a 1 in a million chance, or in fact doesn't even make sense, then you should be willing to accept what happened if you fail, and that something is everything that you tried to save is dead, including the ones you could have saved, because you got greedy. Sometimes these aren't even contrived scenarios - I've seen players try to go after the villain and leave summoned allies (that last less than 5 rounds) to try to put out a raging fire threatening civilians and complain that half of them are dead when they come back after half an hour.

>> No.48416504

>be player
>Be evil asshole in charge of various things
>damn feels good to be a gangsta
>Dm wants us to join rebels, don't give a fuck I have prisoners to torture and a role to play
>Fuck! He's even sending evidences to rest of party, straight up railroading shit!
>Lol burn everything

Somewhere else:
>Hi /tg/
>Whine whine whine player won't do as I say
>He even caught on my bullshit! And he's going against me in cleam game terms! The nerve!

In years of forever dm there's a thing I learnt. Being dm is about bullshitting everything and going with the flow of every player, even those of them that don't want your shit.
I had an entire team in DarkHeresy almost die to a closed door shaft to a damaged part of the ship because those idiot thought that "do not enter: danger" tape automatically means treasure.
And when they almost ruined everything for everyone for THAT guy who wanted to open it, I simply went on and redesigned from scratch that part of the ship.
Being a dm is about letting others play while having fun, not playing with living puppets

>> No.48416512

>"grey morals"
BBEG: "I don't need to explain my reasons to you. Sure, it might've been nice if you would've agreed with me, but we both know that you are an insufferable cunt with a JUSTICE boner, who refuses to accept that there is more to the world than black and white. You want to stop me? Then come at me, bro."

>> No.48416515

You, I like. You're not afraid to make hard decisions, but do things as close as you can to the book while keeping as many people alive as you can. A bit of creativity and a bit of moral leeway will see you far, compared to Mr "I pull things out of my ass" up above.

>> No.48416518

>Being dm is about bullshitting everything and going with the flow of every player, even those of them that don't want your shit.

The trouble is when five guys want to be super edgelords and two guys want to be paladin class goodness.

>> No.48416539

>"Go ahead and kill me."
>"I did what I had to do."
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place, but to do so I had to break some eggs. Now it's my turn."
>"So kill me and make my work complete."

What do /tg/?

>> No.48416541

Sometimes talking is best done with your fists!

>> No.48416555

It'd depend what he did, but the most obvious one is this:
>"You got your heart in the right place."
>"We'll give you a good burial."

>> No.48416621

>"Don't kill me! I have a family!"
They can do better

>> No.48416658

>new game never

also, best girl confirmed

If I don't like his vision of a new world order and the means to do so exist, I put him before a public setting. Have respected authorities denounce him and make it clear that his views are unacceptable.

I might not be able to physically stop him from winning short-term, but I'll make sure he loses the long war.

>> No.48416679

Then you catch them by the throat and ask if they want to roleplay or squabble between party infighting like the little stupid fucking brainless chidren that they are.
75% of the times I did it they found themselves a way to make their pcs go all hand in hand with the occasional and constructive moral discussion about things that happen.
25% of times i lost those people who can't stand being blamed a little from their dm and the game went on smoother than ever, even with edgelords and whiteknights.

>> No.48416684


First I kill him, then I worry about what to do next.

This happened in a campaign, when I met the guy who killed my dad. He tried to say "Wait, I killed your father for a reas-" before I stabbed him to death.

There was absolutely nothing I wanted from him, except his head.

>> No.48416702

Also there's that time when the party split on two different factions, and everything went good. Though i must admit that was super difficult to me to dm everything, but the effort was worth it

>> No.48416926

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Well, if you fail your save against a certain, unique Linnorm's death curse, or end up wearing a lich's phylactery...

>> No.48417175

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
Can we be debate shitty dialogue instead?

>> No.48417186

>> No.48417225

>morals are quantifiable and exist as anything other then completely arbitrary

>> No.48417226

I sure as fuck can tell you how it would go down with my players.
>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
>"uhuhu sure mr.faggotron xD"
>roll initiative
>ask if he has any good loot after the fight
>move on

>> No.48417250

This is a pretty big component theme of Wuxia fiction. The saying goes, "There is no good and evil within the Jiang Hu." It's not normally hamfisted, lazy moral dilemmas like "will you kill one to save five," but rather things like:

"Yes, I killed my father, because he raised a hand against one of our servants."
"I practice cannibalistic dark martial arts because I have been poisoned and will die if I do not. Without me, the peasants will have no protection from those brigands."
"I do not show mercy to killers and vagrants, because I would then be responsible for the lives they take in the future, should my lesson not be taken to heart."

>> No.48417287

As we say in my home town, "Cool story Bro, still murder."

>> No.48417294

I thought you needed to be 18 or older to post on 4chan

>> No.48417307


>> No.48417362

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
"Diffrence of motive you dingus."
>"I did what was needed to be done!"
This has nothing to do with morals, this is just being tricked.
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
"Well you were doing a very shit job of it."
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
"Unless we're talking about something at like a 1:100,000< ratio there was probably a better way."

Those aren't grey morals, those are tropes.

>> No.48417402


Your evil is not my evil, anon.

>> No.48417449

> "You just killed the man?"
> "Yes, in this country murder is an acceptable punishment for robbery; no trial required."
> "Oh, carry on then."

>> No.48417450

I sort of understand your point of view, there's almost always a choice and taking the 5% chance of saving everyone is a valid option when compared to having a 90% possibility of saving 90% of the people. But you're a complete retard if you think there are only happy endings and there are always good choices. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils and there's nothing you can do about it.

>> No.48417553

What about WWII? We killed a ton a German civilians who were just ordinary folks doing their job (evil act), but it kept Hitler from conquering the free nations of Europe (good goal). Was it evil to fight against the Nazis?

And before /pol/ fascists show up, you could easily make the same kind of argument from the other side. Nazis killed tons of civilians (evil act) in the quest to create a glorious united Europe and preserve the Aryan culture against communists and Jews (good act). Were they evil from the perspective of /pol/?

>> No.48417617


That's actually the best answer ever. The bad guy dies with a vague sense of embarrassment, as his killers outright mock his stupid ass.

>> No.48417643

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Well, yeah. That's the point. This is a fucking coup d'etat, motherfucker.

>> No.48417759

>ITT: People who only see three steps not realizing there's eight.

>> No.48417774


>How about when Kill La Kill tried to white wash Satsuki Kiruin in spite of the fact that she had one of her generals cold bloodedly murder a teenaged student, and then strung up his lifeless corpse outside the school as a warning. Pretty hard to whitewash that, so it was just conveniently forgotten. Again, good if done right, usually shit.

You could make a case that the student was killed because he a) stole a goku uniform and b) attacked said general once he actually gained the power of said uniform.

I mean, you wouldn't want some random student getting it into their head that attacking a general and stealing a uniform is A-Okay to do.

Granted, there are other things that would be harsh if Kill La Kill wasn't treading the line between being an over-the-top comedy as well as an over-the-top action anime so I guess people just forgot because once Nui and Ragyo came into the scene, the show became much darker and serious and the shit that was happening couldn't be handwaved as the show being darkly humorous.

>> No.48417796


So the alternative is to invite retarded edgefags and their lackeys instead?

Why not just restrict alignments to Neutral or Unaligned if you're really that worried about people using it as an excuse to fuck up the campaign for everyone else?

>> No.48417824

Doing a good act gives you +3 good points.
Doing a bad act gives you -5 evil points.

So if you kill a one time murder you have -2 evil points.
But maybe you killed him to save him from torture? +3
Now you have +1 good points.

That is grey morality.
Killing ONE to save ONE is not righteous.
Killing ONE to save TWO is righteous.

Then emotion and "love" is a third value that you have to also consider .

>> No.48417833

Fucking Peanuts, man.

>> No.48417840


>> No.48417875


Sometimes, the third option isn't the best option.

Sometimes, the prize behind door number 3 is a zonk and you end up going home with garbage rather than a new fridge or a state-of-the-art toaster oven.

That's the risk you make when you try to choose an option that's not on the board and what ends up happening is, by trying to have everything, you end up getting nothing instead.

Shit happens, you're not always guarenteed a happy ending.

>> No.48417900

4chan fought in ww2?
Stop pretending everyone here is from the US. It gets annoying over time.

>> No.48417930

Also, you can make the case that that's a flat out miss-translation. Nigga wasn't dead.

>> No.48418648

I dont care what your moral alignment is, if you're shitting up the place, you're shitting up the place. End of story, and that means a good shanking to the offending party

>> No.48418688

I always liked it when the villain tells the hero something along the lines of

"Killing me won't bring her back!" And hero replies: Ain't that a shame.


"How do you think you'll feel if you kill me!?" Let's find out.

Or my personal favorite...

"Do you think you can live with the fact that you killed me!?" I'm learning to live with a lot of things.

I think it makes for an... interesting change of pace.

>> No.48418703

God damn Advance Wars: Days of Ruin had good art

>> No.48418718

These are all spooks, seize the world

>> No.48418746

>If you kill me then you will be just like me
I was playing a campaign where a man had raised undead dragon lich things to destroy the material plane and conquer the positive energy plane and the negative energy plane.He used this line after we defeated him.

>> No.48418760

>>People who know so little about metaethics they aren't even aware they have a value-set, and just take their cultural norms as universal truths
No, other people are just wrong.

>> No.48418762

The best way to execute a grey morality is to assume that no person is either wholly evil or wholly good. All peoples morality is neither wholly evil or wholly good, and in truth both concepts do not obey some universal truth of definition.

The entire world is grey, but people necessarily box this complexity into "good" or "evil", to simplify existence and make it easier to comprehend.

>> No.48418797

They're how reality works. That said,

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"

...isn't morally grey. It's just stupid.

In fact, none of these proclamations are always morally grey. It's all in the execution.

>> No.48418803

When done well, it makes good characters. Few people think that they are "evil" after all.

When done badly, it reads like some fanfiction where the 12 year old writer wanted to be "subversive" because it's cool.

>> No.48418811

A wise man once said "If you kill a killer, the number of killers int he world remains the same." Which is true.
However, once you kill a few more the number starts dropping.

>> No.48419368

I love villains who pretend to be morally grey, but are completely black hat. Fooled my players once, because people at my table refuse to check motives or system equivalent, and why would I ever lie to them while acting as the mouth of an ancient evil?

>> No.48419415

Kinda meaningless if the person spouting them isn't successful. You're doing shady shit for the good, then you better have results, otherwise literally nobody gives a shit about how nice of a guy you are and how saintly your intentions were.

You killed the former pacifist king and usurped the throne, turning the nation into a militaristic dictatorship, but in doing so managed to get rid of the influence of other nations, suppressed corrupt nobles and are well on your way to restoring the kingdom to its former glory? Fine, you have a point. Fucked that up and just made it worse? Well fuck you, get in the fucking loop and jump.

>> No.48419478


I think it's still solved by rules utilitarianism in this thread, too.

>> No.48419505

Hypothetical scenario: You and 10 other people have the ability to travel through time. It is not something voluntary, but whenever any of them die, they go possess a past version of themselves in order to bring about a timeline where they didn't die. So they are effectively inmortal until they die a natural death of old age or otherwisr reach a death that is utterly unavoidable no matter what decisions they made at any point in their life. Now, you have been to the future and died of a plague that wipes out humanity. One of the other 10 who have your powers are responsible for creating this plague. You cannot simply assassinate them though, because of their time travel power.

So you devise a scheme where each of the 10 people will be trapped in a Saw-like murder room, where one of them is guaranteed to die. Every time one dies, history resets, and in this way, humanity is caught in a permanent groundhog day loop and is never wiped out.

Good or bad?

>> No.48419547

Bad. Timeline erasure kills almost infinite humans per timeline. You killed humanity infinite times due to that.

What you do is hit them with a memory thing that makes them decide not to make a plague to not destroy humanity.

>> No.48419606

It's a roleplaying game, damnit. Just do what you think your character would think of doing. Not like anybody is really getting hurt

>> No.48419676

Those "retarded edgefags" you're complaining about aren't going to try and spontaneously attack and murder their party members for being the wrong alignment. They will not only tolerate your choice to volunteer at an orphanage, but will likely help if you ask. They have nothing to lose by behaving in whatever fashion suits them, so they'll do the rational thing.

Goodfags and paladins, meanwhile, can't even stand for neutral inaction, let alone permit and help their evil pary members from having fun.

>> No.48419693

The dice don't care about who is right or wrong.

And if a GM ever tries to give me a bonus for playing the "good-guy" I'm going to ignore it.

>> No.48419746

I hate you so much.

>> No.48419772

Nobody suffers or dies if the timeline is reset. On the other hand, he is preventing infinite deaths due to the plague and subsequent resets that cause it to repeat.

P.S. The guy who wiped ouy humanity did it intentionally. If he is imprisoned or permanently detained, his suicide or declining health causes a reset.

>> No.48419785

>"My son died of skin cancer, and I just want no one else to suffer the same fate"
>tries to blow up the sun.

>> No.48419820

I'm glad you're not in my games. I enjoy having to make tough decisions, or when I gm my players making tough decisions. The drama and tension of this shit is one of the cornerstones of the hobby for me.

Which is why I find this whole thread frustrating. The idea of needing to sacrifice one to save a million and living with the consequences makes me excited just to think about it. I don't believe some people don't want that.

Of course if you want to be a superhero, nobody dies, and morals are absolute, be my guest. There is no bad wrong fun, I just don't get it because that is incredibly boring to me.

>> No.48420312

>Dirty Harry
>noir story

>> No.48420495

The reason currency is awarded to people who work retail jobs is that currency represents value, and they are producing value for the society as a whole (not exactly a lot of value, but still a higher net value of society as a whole, than if they didn't work)

Your character, on the other hand, just reassigns value from others onto himself. He's a value thief, a moral communist.

>> No.48420529

That's not liking moral ambiguity, it's just having the most basic of epistemological grounding and understanding that morals are, as is a cliché to say but nonetheless completely true, axiomatic at their base and therefore completely subjective.

That doesn't mean you can't decide to just arbitrarily pick a moral code and follow it to become a true paragon of good, it just means that you know that there isn't actually any inherent goodness in the moral code, you just picked one because no reasons

>> No.48420547

>How about when Kill La Kill tried to white wash Satsuki Kiruin in spite of the fact that she had one of her generals cold bloodedly murder a teenaged student, and then strung up his lifeless corpse outside the school as a warning. Pretty hard to whitewash that, so it was just conveniently forgotten. Again, good if done right, usually shit.
it's actually funnier than that in Kek la Kek, Anon.
He never died

Same with the boxer whose spine got snapped then he slammed against the four elites. He was completely, perfectly fine again by ep. 19 or something. It was merely a flesh wound.

Also episode 4 with the death race trap thing never happened apparently, because it was "a joke episode"

Kill la Kill started out so good and turned out to be so unapologetically garbage

>> No.48420551

What money truly represents is time. A person's life is finite. The time they spend working or training is a large fraction of their life and takes away from their personal time. There is nothing greedy about being compensated for giving up a major part of your life.

>> No.48420560


>So, you're standing in front of an orphanage, what do you do?
>I set it on fire and rape one of the survivors in the butthole

Evil, not even once.

>> No.48420567

why didn't they just evacuate the citizens of the other planet first

>> No.48420598

That sounds fucking hilarious Anon
Props to you for just rolling with it

Sometimes, some players just want to have good ol'-fashioned genocidal fun

>> No.48420661

Could be grief clouding his judgment but that's just dumb.

>> No.48420664

Pretty shit m8.
>find the one who'd start the plague
>trap him in a scenario that he can't escape, nor can he die
>crisis averted

No need for the shitty extra grimdark you just added.

>> No.48420750

>capture the guy
>he bites off his tongue
>history resets
>he locks you up in his sex dungeon for 20 years

>capture the guy
>restrain the fuck out of him
>his muscles atrophy and his health deteriorates
>he dies 20 years later
>history resets
>he locks you in his extra-kinky sex dungeon for 50 years

>> No.48420777

>manages to commit suicide
>mention that he's put in a scenario that he can't escape nor die
Basic reading comprehension helps to take off the edginess of your scenario.
>moving the goalposts this hard

>> No.48420808

>mention that health deterioiration due to medicated paralysis or whatever causes history to reset
>hurr reading comprehension
first, learn some of that yourself before talking about it in others

>> No.48420832

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, meddling. The degree is arbitrary. The definitions blurred. If I'm to choose between one evil and another

I'd rather not choose at all.

>> No.48420843

At one point I was running ravenloft and one of the character's cut off a hag's head, and the player said "Wait, but I had reasons!" in a hag voice and it fucking killed me

>> No.48420855

>the goalposts just keep on moving
>being this much of a fag that your needlessly complex grimdark scenario can easily be stopped so you have to keep making up additional rules to justify it
>this much autism can actually be contained in a single human being

>> No.48420864

>If I'm to choose between one evil and another
>I'd rather choose the one that puts out.
t. Geralt of Rivia

>> No.48420899

>mentioned the rules from the start
>some fag has a problem with them
who cares. You can be mad all you want. It doesn't affect me.

>> No.48421046

There's good and evil on both sides of every war. This player realized that. Since all conflicts are complex and lack clear good guys and bad guys, the side to choose is the side you're already invested in. If you switch sides every time you see something that makes your side look bad, pretty soon nobody will be dumb enough to trust you. This player just wanted to soare the other players of the temptation to make a dumb and short-sighted decision.

>> No.48421092

Our GM's been running with a moral dilemma in our game that I think's being handled with a lot more tact than most of my other experiences with "grey" morals, since it feels like a struggle between two goods who are at odds rather than an attempt to be dark or edgy.

Basically, the world is ending and we know this is currently happening. The gods are dying and the world is dying with them, and the world's major religion is currently gathering as many people as they can in their holy city to perform a ritual to transport the city into another dimension as a great, final exodus. We know for a fact that the ritual will work, but it's a one-way trip. We have a guarantee that a few hundred thousand people can survive, but everyone else in the realm will be doomed.

Meanwhile, there's another faction that wants to steal the artifact that the city uses to jump realities to jump to the celestial realm and try to replace the dying gods, a process that's only been vaguely referred to in old world texts and nobody knows if it will work or not. The holy city doesn't want to surrender the artifact because if they chance it on a ritual that MIGHT avert the apocalypse and fail, everyone will die, whereas there's a chance to save one civilization if we don't risk it.

Whether or not to go through with it has been a source of a lot of philosophical debate, especially on the behalf of the party's paladin. I'm still on the fence, myself.

>> No.48421113

Why does it have to be for no reasons? A value system chosen for its practical benefits is just as valid as any other. Do what you want, and no matter what it is you'll be able to find some way to justify it later.

>> No.48421212

That's pretty good, but there's a little bit of metagaming/railroading involved. Suppose the players call the DM's bluff and choose the option that has a small chance of saving the whole world and a large chance of killing everyone. Are those really the odds, or is it pretty much guaranteed that everyone will be saved because that's the option you're supposed to pick? Will the DM define the chances of success and make a die roll in the open?

>> No.48421297

The thing the GM has to make sure of when writing a moral dilemma is that it's possible for the players to make either choice without ending the campaign. A dilemma should be a fork in the road leading to two very different places, and neither possible path should be blocked by an invisible wall. There are some anons here who have described moral dilemmas they put in their campaigns where they really needed the players to choose one option over the other, even though the choice was presented as difficult with merits on both sides. That's railroading.

>> No.48421439

t. Kant

>> No.48421648

Is this the plot of Mirai Nikki
I've never read/watched Mirai Nikki (I literally don't even know if it's a VN or just anime) but for some reason I feel like asking if this is the plot of Mirai Nikki

>> No.48421730

fact: with these parameters in place, the world is already stuck in an infinite groundhog day loop

consider: the reason they die when they reach a natural death of old age isn't idiosyncratic, it's supposed to be a natural extension of infinite timeline manipulation
naturally, no matter what, at some point you're gonna die
what happens is, that the ABSOLUTE LONGEST life becomes the "canon" one, as you keep reincarnating until that is the only one left, the one where you've taken all the health-conscious choices or whatever and stayed alive as long as is possible within the constraints of the universe's laws

it doesn't mean you don't reincarnate again, it just means that THAT is the absolute longest you can survive
this means that there's already a cap on human development: at the EARLIEST of these MAXIMUM life spans of one of the ten people, it will reset
This is an unavoidable hardcap on human existence

If they retain their memories, there might be some timeline where they all achieve biological immortality (and it has to be all of them, because remember, the hardcap is the SHORTEST of the maximum life spans), but that would still mean it's a groundhog day loop, just extremely long

>> No.48421752

that's utterly retarded, not at all close to making any semblance of sense, and I'm not sure if you're baiting or being a moron

>> No.48421775

"Benefits" have to be defined first
To do that you need a system of values
Values will always be arbitrary (happiness, hunger, lust, all emotions aren't inherently valuable, they're just very motivating and therefore we tend to maximize them because of our programming)

>> No.48421813


Well, they're not wrong. They're just pissy because they're suddenly in the minority being sacrificed.

>> No.48422565

Money represents labor hours.

You'd have to be mentally retarded not to comprehend something so simple.

>> No.48422606

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Can be a sound argument under the correct circumstances.

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
Every villain who isn't a psychopath, downright malevolent or a force of pure chaos believes this.

>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
Can happen.

>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
Actually true.

There's nothing "grey" about it. It's only grey morality when both sides are equally fucked up. Whether it means equally evil or equally virtuous doesn't matter (and the latter is actually harder to pull off though more interesting. But instead we get all this "everyone castrates everyone" GoT bullshit).

What I actually want to see is a campaign where the BBEG is a confirmed Lawful Good Paladin fighting against a party that's wholly good and/or neutral.

>> No.48422918

It's far more accurate than thinking tgat the amount of money you earn in normal labour is directly proportional to how much you contribute to society as a whole.

>> No.48423130


>Durr hurr, only 2 choices and it's an impossible situation that is so contrived it hurts to even conjure up a logical situation in which I can force a stupid choice on someone.

Really? /v/ is that away, gents. Also, and I hate to bring this up, but you can't predict the future, you stupid bastards: you have no way of determining the consequences of your action beyond the action itself, so putting anyone in a situation that has one magically knowing the end result of their actions beyond the action itself is sorta shit storytelling, and not even close to reality.

>Push a red button.
Everyone dies because it exploded everything.

>Don't push a red button
Everyone dies because NOT pushing it exploded everything.

If you have to contrive my knowledge of a situation and the future being perfect, it literally becomes a utilitarian load of shit.

Tl;dr: You can't tell the future, you dumbasses; if your morality requires me to be lucky in order to pursue the remote but morally righteous action, or somehow states I don't have that choice, get a new paradigm.

Me having what might as well be a theoretically zero chance? That's chill. I'd take those odds.

But you can't contrive a stupid enough situation in which I won't at least try to obtain the ultimate happy ending, you fucking skeletons.

>> No.48423158

Also, pic related.

>> No.48423217

> compromising yourself for morality
Fucking foreheadlets

>> No.48423225

>Money represents labor hours.

objectively false

money can be made by returns on investment or lending with interest or profitable trade or renting property, among many other options

>> No.48423495

There is no good, nor evil. But thinking makes it so.

>> No.48423524

>being Machevellian

>> No.48425633

So all you need to do is find the right sophistry to justify whatever values you have already and attack the ones you don't. There are no moral facts, only moral rhetoric.

>> No.48425922

Do all people get paid the same amount for working the same amount of time? Of course not.

>> No.48425951

Stop being from the wrong side of the globe, commie

>> No.48426008

There's a reason it's called WORLD war 2. It's probable that your country was involved in some fashion regardless. Unless of course you're a nazi, in which case you were still involved, and killing German civilians, but you didn't win.

>> No.48426272

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
I can't think of a single time anyone has said that as justification, only as a way to get out of being shot in the face.

>> No.48426599

Then there is no right or wrong?

>> No.48426657

No, that's where God is looking for a successor so he arranges a battle royale where the winner takes over. Everyone gets diaries that predict the future in some way but only cover what they would put in their diary.

So the selfless MC knows almost everything about the future except anything directly concerning himself, like who murders him.

And he partners up with a crazy stalker who knows only the things about him.

>> No.48426703

You aren't wrong

>> No.48426762

This. Morality is entirely subjective. Nothing has any value one way or another aside for societal and personally ascribed values.

>> No.48426861

That would be the Master from Fallout.

>> No.48427002

>>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"

No, BBEG. I intend to be much, much worse.

>> No.48427004

If youre taking Kill La Kill seriously, you're doing it wrong.

>> No.48427118

you're a gay moral

>> No.48427490

Lin is best girl, despite the fact that she's creepy as fuck.

>> No.48427552

For example, some culture believe any form of sexual intercourse outside of certain conditions are deplorable. These condition change drastically between cultures. These are relative morals.

>> No.48427568

It's called a WORLD war for a reason retard. Every nation that matters participated (and many nations that don't matter).

>> No.48427656

Investing and speculating etc. are all services whose purpose is to provide liquidity to the system of buy and sell. They assist in this transfer of material goods and services, a secondary role to the primary element of labor. Without an actual product on the market, there is no service to provide. Would you buy X units of empty nothing? Ultimately, the value of a dollar, is being able to exchange your own manpower hours for the manpower hours of others. It is an evolution of the barter system where people would take grain they grew themselves and trade directly for textiles spun by someone else. It is simply much easier to carry around a pocketful of coins than a few kilograms of grain.

>> No.48428159

It's pretty easy to talk him out of it, though, because he has the stupidest plan ever.

>> No.48428350

>I live in black and white

Consider suicide.

>> No.48428436

>Fictional Universe, with actual Gods n Shieet
Morals decend from them - this still cause debate since Gods themselves differ on morals

>Real life
Ignore Herd Thinking and do what you want
Anything else is a Spook

If you want to enforce the World within a black/white filter, go for it - i wish you luck

If you want a completely Grey filter then i do it the same

We all go back in the box at the end of day anyway

>> No.48428772

It's only stupid if you know that his Super Mutants are sterile.

>> No.48429785

Had an antagonist use the "I just wanted to make the world a better place!"

The antagonist didn't have an answer when I got super emotional in character and shouted "you failed LONG before we ever came around!"

I stabbed him anyway. From my character's perspective (and from that of everyone at the table), the bastard deserved it.

>> No.48429954


Virtue Ethics master race reporting in

>> No.48430018

Not being Consequentialist?


>> No.48430205

Superman it's time to stop posting

>> No.48430604

Even supes can't save everyone.

>> No.48431147

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
"Except for the being dead bit, which is the only part I care about."

>> No.48431190

"No, I mean it. I've got this base rigged on self destruct to several of my vitals. You'll be just like me, burnt to little bits of particulate ash."

>> No.48431201


Though it does't stop him trying until the end of the line.

>> No.48431208

>Thoughts on "grey morals", /tg/?

>> No.48432429

Although it's definitely possible to attack the internal logic of a person's moral code, if they are even remotely trained in formal logic they will be able to construct completely alien mindsets that nonetheless are just as "correct" in an epistemological sense as less retarded codes.

The main reason the alien codes are retarded is that humans are really, really bad at altering their axiomatic programming. When we do, it's rare and different enough we rightfully label it insanity.
You won't find many human beings who're actually able to commit to any creed, because they still have their biological urges that are nigh-impossible to deny.
So you end up with syncretism running amok, like with religious people who don't commit to the more "unsavory" tenets

>> No.48432487

You'd have to be completely retarded to believe something so simplistic and incorrect

Do you honestly believe something so stupid?

You're putting the cart before the horse you mongoloid. Manpower is a tool, not a goal. You pay for whatever gives value, in whatever form.

The idiotic notion that manpower is required to achieve anything that creates value and is therefore the basis of the economic system is asinine.

You're probably going to say something equally stupid as "well substitutes that make it require fewer manpower hours to achieve the same amount of value just create a certain number of manpower hours and the basis is still manpowers" but that's just using manpower hours as an independent unit, COMPLETELY unrelated to the value of currency, it has nothing to do at all with the economic merit of calculating economics based on manpower hours

If manpower hours are what constitutes all of value, why do e.g. software and other freely distributable/copyable goods require so few manhours but create so large transfers of money? Because manhours are a good themselves you fucking moron

>> No.48432507

That's a strawman, though I think you might just be too much of a mongoloid to actually understand that value AS DEFINED BY HOLDERS OF VALUE is not at all proportional to contribution to society

A druggie probably values heroin far more than an orphanage, which is why heroin costs a lot. Not because heroin takes a lot of time to produce, not because it's good for society, not because of manhours or anything equally stupid, but because of FUCKING DEMAND

smelly dumb nigger cattle scum

>> No.48433595

This is the best shit in this thread.

>> No.48433810


This is an absolutely beautiful sentiment and I'm kind of angry that the two idiots digging through his letters express it with all the clumsiness of a 90s comic book.

You can't save everyone. Some people will hate you and curse you for your failures. But that doesn't make the ones you did save any less valuable. Doing good isn't a numbers game, and being good isn't a thing that happens because you ting +1 on the Morality Meter. You do good because you know that people have value beyond "just another life", because every story you change has the potential to change the world.

"Buried under his honor." Fucking idiots. He's not buried under his honor. He's carrying it as a reminder of why he does what he does.

>> No.48433910

>There's good, and there's evil.
Wrong from the very start.

>> No.48433927

Not saving everyone doesn't invalidate the ones you saved.

But Superman doesn't needlessly risk the lives of others to save everyone. He makes sure the ones that are already safe aren't put in new dangers, just so he can say he saved everyone like some people up thread.

Self-sacrifice is all right, but when it's at other people's expense... that's not even being a good person any more.

>> No.48433942

>"Buried under his honor." Fucking idiots. He's not buried under his honor. He's carrying it as a reminder of why he does what he does.
you do realize that it is implied that doing what he does is part of his sense of honor, and he is buried under its burden, right?
It's literally exactly what you just said was the "correct" interpretation Anon

You sound like an angry idiot, like this one fat Jew I know

>> No.48434071

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
These are fine and in rare cases, right

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
Literally the most assbackwards, shitty ideology there is.

>> No.48434159

You're so shallow in your understanding that you've become a raging retard.

Software requires manpower to create too, dumbass. It requires skilled and trained manpower at that. Some items are worth more than others, that is the nature of commerce. Machinery itself does create manpower hours. Why do people buy a tractor? It is more efficient than buying 10 workers to do the same job. Why do people buy expert AI? It is more efficient than hiring 10 specialists.

The value of rare resources such as gold, comes from the time it takes to find, extract, and potentially other factors as well like remoteness and dangerousness. If you could just run your fingers through the sand and find a chunk of gold, nobody would care for gold. It takes tremendous effort, and is thus considered valuable.

Once again, if there was no labor, if everyone sat around buying and selling, then there would be no food, everyone would starve. All resources would be consumed. Eventually there would be nothing left to trade for.

>> No.48434238

In order to save you, I must first do you harm.

Surgery is now evil.

>> No.48434263

>Me too
>You fucked up
>What I'm doing now
Moralizing your actions is just a means to overthink and seek pity at the same time. We're in conflict, we both know why, this is only going to end one way.

>> No.48434392

Thank you for telling us, now we carry you outside *then* stab you to death

>> No.48434502

Paladins are evil, got it.

>implying paladins aren't paid with their god's approval and the powers they get.

>> No.48434549

i have never seen it implemented well and always sounds like a way to justify an edgelord's actions to me.

>> No.48434592

Underrated post.

>> No.48434682

They're examples of consequentialist thinking, which is only certainly moral if you have a good accounting of the means and the ends. That can be hard to accomplish in real life. While it's certainly a popular argument nowadays, it's not necessarily and inarguably true.

Consider as one counterargument the Indian prisoner. It proposes an Indian who is being held in a labor camp with several of his friends. There is some mechanism or situation wherein he must kill one of their number to save the lives of all the others. A consequentialist would suggest that the moral decision is to stab this inconvenient Indian to death. However, when actually faced with the task of killing an innocent person, people of a normal disposition experience a deep intuitive revulsion. Moreover, should the escaping Indians be rounded up and put to death regardless after escape, the moral conditions of the situation seem to shift significantly. What was originally an unnatural-feeling sacrifice for the greater good seems to transform into a fruitless act of murder atop a larger catastrophe. This shifting suggests that consequentialist thinking is not truly moral, but rather an incoherent attempt at creating moral accounts.

There are also criticisms vis-a-vis the incommensurability of human life. In order to weigh one group of lives or lived experiences against another, one must be able to define the comparative value of lives. But many consequentialists cannot provide a rigorous or coherent means of doing so, or at least of justifying their process of doing so. This means their calculations are largely incompetent, and that their moral system is not functional.

Consequentialists have counterarguments to all this. I just mean to point out that it's not cut-and-dried.

The competing conceptions of morality (deontology and virtue ethics) place more focus on volitional elements of the moral actor.

>> No.48434743

>"Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste."

Best villain ever. Others can't even compete.

>> No.48434959

All of a sudden I want a setting where this isn't a proverb but a universal constant.

>> No.48435023

>Thoughts on "grey morals", /tg/?
Well given that there are vanishingly few times when things are objectively, obviously, 100% black-and-white, I'm gonna go with "people do what they think is right and other may or may not agree."

Also having X action be morally in/correct 100% of the time without considering the circumstances surrounding said action is a great way to out yourself as having the mental capabilities of a 4 year old.

>> No.48435070

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
This one is always bullshit.

>"I did what was needed to be done!"
>"I just wanted to make the world a better place!"
>"You need to sacrifice some to save the whole!"
These can be legit, depending on context.

>> No.48435076

best baddie.

>> No.48435130

>"If you kill me then you will be just like me!"
But that's not true at all. I'd be alive, and they would be dead.

>> No.48435377

I'm just talking about their use as villian motivations, man.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.