AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

oh and detect alignment is a perfectly good arguement, as it is not about if you can block it, but it is about if the spell has a effect can it tell evil from good, and it can, cause it says so on black and white on the bloody pages of the rule book

QED. There is good and evil, othervise the spell would not exist

FYI - Bringing RL opinions into a DnD discussion on what is Good and Evil is kind of silly, but only because, as it's been said, Good and Evil are absolutes in DnD. You have to remember that. So regardless of what you, or your character, thinks, the cosmos are the final say. Of course, IG interactions based on RL/IC views on Good and Evil is entirely different! It's just the discussion itself cannot be base entirely on RL views, because if you think X is Good that's fine, but DnD can say it's Evil and that makes you wrong, in game terms.

Naivatkal wrote:

FYI - Bringing RL opinions into a DnD discussion on what is Good and Evil is kind of silly, but only because, as it's been said, Good and Evil are absolutes in DnD. You have to remember that. So regardless of what you, or your character, thinks, the cosmos are the final say. Of course, IG interactions based on RL/IC views on Good and Evil is entirely different! It's just the discussion itself cannot be base entirely on RL views, because if you think X is Good that's fine, but DnD can say it's Evil and that makes you wrong, in game terms.

thank you and i agree completely, though i would extend it to saying, dont take it out on others oocly when others dont share your views on how to rp.

Once again, I am not trying to give any specific examples in particular. But don't even pretend to act for one second that everyone's actions are infallible. After all, none of the people are actually the gods they represent, but a mere mortal shadow pretending to be just that, sometimes taking their own spin.

My real life opinion (which is that trying to assess the D&D 9 alignments into actuality in any shape or form is completely retarded) has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Calm down.

Needled247 wrote:

Once again, I am not trying to give any specific examples in particular. But don't even pretend to act for one second that everyone's actions are infallible. After all, none of the people are actually the gods they represent, but a mere mortal shadow pretending to be just that, sometimes taking their own spin.

My real life opinion has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Calm down.

i was speaking to death mainly, I have few problems with what you said, as you didnt attack my rp oocly, I dissagrea with the gods having anything to do with good and evil being definite in faerun, but thats about it.

The act alone does not determine if something is good or not. An act is black, white or grey by itself, but the intention and heart of the character moves it further down or up on the scale. To use the torture example for a clearly evil deed and a welfare donation for a good deed.

I. There is an insidious plot where a group is preparing a shipment of poison to murder a large amount of people, the character in question needs to decide if he will use torture to attempt to extract the information that may prevent this from happening. The deed of torture here is definitively evil, but he does so out of the noblest of intentions, namely to prevent a gruesome murder of innocent people. In addition the man being tortured is clearly a criminal and he takes no pleasure from the act itself. In my opinion the deed becomes a dark shade of grey, but not black. It is far from honorable and good, but it is not evil.

II. A follower of some dark deity simply wishes to inflict enormous pain on a captive farmer out of the sadistic fulfillment he gains from such an act. The deed of torture is evil, the intention is also evil. The man being tortured is clearly no enemy and there is nothing to gain from the act. Here the color is clearly black.

III. A follower of of the Triad donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention through the deed is to help remove suffering and selflessly so. Color would be white.

IV. A follower of the nine pits donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention is to use this to cloak his dark intentions and gain more influence for the ability to bring his plans to fruition. The color is grey at best.

Honeydew Snugglepoof wrote:

The act alone does not determine if something is good or not. An act is black, white or grey by itself, but the intention and heart of the character moves it further down or up on the scale. To use the torture example for a clearly evil deed and a welfare donation for a good deed.

I. There is an insidious plot where a group is preparing a shipment of poison to murder a large amount of people, the character in question needs to decide if he will use torture to attempt to extract the information that may prevent this from happening. The deed of torture here is definitively evil, but he does so out of the noblest of intentions, namely to prevent a gruesome murder of innocent people. In addition the man being tortured is clearly a criminal and he takes no pleasure from the act itself. In my opinion the deed becomes a dark shade of grey, but not black. It is far from honorable and good, but it is not evil.

II. A follower of some dark deity simply wishes to inflict enormous pain on a captive farmer out of the sadistic fulfillment he gains from such an act. The deed of torture is evil, the intention is also evil. The man being tortured is clearly no enemy and there is nothing to gain from the act. Here the color is clearly black.

III. A follower of of the Triad donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention through the deed is to help remove suffering and selflessly so. Color would be white.

IV. A follower of the nine pits donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention is to use this to cloak his dark intentions and gain more influence for the ability to bring his plans to fruition. The color is grey at best.

would you agree that the sum of thier actions would be represented in being good evil or in between, and that there are definite evils in faerun, and thus by extension pure evil and pure good exists, and this level of goodness or evilness can be determined by spells, and thus measured, it is not subject to interpretations and personal oppions as the spells tell you "that is a evil person" and "he is good as a hound archon", your views on good and evil has merits but by the mechanics and cosmololigy of the world it is definable through the grace of spells and by the will of the dm.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Even by Real Life morality this is blatantly idiotic, You need a lecture in the real world, when you have done that, and seen what suffering that has been commited around the world, when you have talked to soldiers that was told to stand by and not act when Serbian soldiers marched in on Srebrenitza, and then see a man broken completely by guilt because of it, then you can speak of the bloody merits of not fighting evils in the real world.

Oh don't even GO into Serbo-Croatia-Bosnian war please for you know nothing of it. You dont know what caused it, you dont know what happened, you dont know how it ended. So just dont go into that on this topic or I will really start lecturing you OOCly. Savy?

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Honeydew Snugglepoof wrote:

The act alone does not determine if something is good or not. An act is black, white or grey by itself, but the intention and heart of the character moves it further down or up on the scale. To use the torture example for a clearly evil deed and a welfare donation for a good deed.

I. There is an insidious plot where a group is preparing a shipment of poison to murder a large amount of people, the character in question needs to decide if he will use torture to attempt to extract the information that may prevent this from happening. The deed of torture here is definitively evil, but he does so out of the noblest of intentions, namely to prevent a gruesome murder of innocent people. In addition the man being tortured is clearly a criminal and he takes no pleasure from the act itself. In my opinion the deed becomes a dark shade of grey, but not black. It is far from honorable and good, but it is not evil.

II. A follower of some dark deity simply wishes to inflict enormous pain on a captive farmer out of the sadistic fulfillment he gains from such an act. The deed of torture is evil, the intention is also evil. The man being tortured is clearly no enemy and there is nothing to gain from the act. Here the color is clearly black.

III. A follower of of the Triad donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention through the deed is to help remove suffering and selflessly so. Color would be white.

IV. A follower of the nine pits donates a large portion of his wealth to help a starving people. His intention is to use this to cloak his dark intentions and gain more influence for the ability to bring his plans to fruition. The color is grey at best.

would you agree that the sum of thier actions would be represented in being good evil or in between, and that there are definite evils in faerun, and thus by extension pure evil and pure good exists, and this level of goodness or evilness can be determined by spells, and thus measured, it is not subject to interpretations and personal oppions as the spells tell you "that is a evil person" and "he is good as a hound archon", your views on good and evil has merits but by the mechanics and cosmololigy of the world it is definable through the grace of spells and by the will of the dm.

I would handle it the following way: Actions (without intentions, regard of situation, state of mind, etc) are in Dungeons and Dragons set to a certain alignment. A lie is chaotic, torture is evil, enforcing a law lawful, etc. The combination of those actions set it in one of the nine alignment fields. A lie to have someone tortured is hence chaotic evil. A law that has someone tortured hence is lawful evil. A lie to save someone is chaotic good. (Somewhat badly phrased, with "to" I mean lie + torture = chaotic evil). The intention, state of mind and situation then turns moves it somewhat on the scale.

There are absolutes in dungeons and dragons. Some of the spells of the book of vile darkness have an evil description. Though seeing that celestials can become corrupted and turn evil, I would not say that they are an absolute of good (at least not all of them). Even if that is just a thousanth of a percent that has them away from being 100% good, there is still that spark that can be corrupted. Oh, and for mortal races like elves and humans, I do not believe they can become an absolute.

In D&D, torture is evil. Whether the ends are for the Good or the Evil, it's STILL an evil act. It's anyone's choice whether they are willing to stoop to evil for the greater good. But the fact is, they are committing an evil act. And Good does not like that.

There's a section in the Book of Fluffy Goodness (er, Exalted Deeds, whatever) about this very thing.

"In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."

"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophe as a form of martyrdom. 'I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.'"

"Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession."

"The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed."

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos aren't just descriptors, they are as fundamental to the metaphysical D&D world as Fire, Earth, Water, and Air are to the physical D&D world. A character might say they don't exist and hold such a philosophy, that's fine. But they are wrong. Just like those who like to say the gods don't exist are wrong.

Zedrik wrote:

In D&D, torture is evil. Whether the ends are for the Good or the Evil, it's STILL an evil act. It's anyone's choice whether they are willing to stoop to evil for the greater good. But the fact is, they are committing an evil act. And Good does not like that.

There's a section in the Book of Fluffy Goodness (er, Exalted Deeds, whatever) about this very thing.

"In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."

"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophe as a form of martyrdom. 'I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.'"

"Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession."

"The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed."

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos aren't just descriptors, they are as fundamental to the metaphysical D&D world as Fire, Earth, Water, and Air are to the physical D&D world. A character might say they don't exist and hold such a philosophy, that's fine. But they are wrong. Just like those who like to say the gods don't exist are wrong.

Thanks for that post. Good bit of knowledge!

... actions are why we have allignment points.
Torture someone? Take an evil point.

Evil and good are absolutes in this setting.

Killing, in my opinion, is always evil.

Killing, in my characters opinion, is how their world works. It can be evil and it can be good.

Silent2001 wrote:

... actions are why we have allignment points.
Torture someone? Take an evil point.

Evil and good are absolutes in this setting.

Killing, in my opinion, is always evil.

Killing, in my characters opinion, is how their world works. It can be evil and it can be good.

Always evil?
What if you kill that malevoulent culstist that planned to murder an entire city?

What ALWAYS would be evil is Rape, Molesting, Child abuse and stuff like that. But we don't have it here

Are you asking me as a person, or one of my characters?

Seeeee the difference!

Hey Draco, I would highly recommend reading The Book of Vile Darkness and The Book of Exalted Deeds for clarification of what is evil and good. The Book of Vile Darkness explains that there will always be gray areas, but whether or not a character is evil or committing an evil act does tie heavily into intensions. Here is one example given: While a paladin is trying to climb to the top of a mountain to defeat some evil fiends he accidentily triggers a rockslide which crushes a village of innocent commoners below. The paladin isn't evil because he didn't realize his action of climbing the mountain would lead to the deaths of the innocents, however as a good character he will feel guilt and probably try to make ammends somehow. However, if the paladin noticed loose rocks overhanging the village and ran up the mountain anyway, thus triggering the landslide, his action would be considered evil. A second example: a good character is tricked into poisoning a water supply, believing that the nearby village is infested with demonic fiends. Another good character chances by and notices him poisoning the water supply and kills him to prevent the deaths. Neither character is commiting an evil act. Rather, a tragedy has occured because one good man was tricked.

Here is a great link that clairfies the 9 alignments quite well: http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

It's easy to be polite to friends and allies, even a Banite can do that, but one time when alignment should shine most clearly is in how one treats their foes. For example it's not evil to try and prevent a villain from being resurrected by severing his head or burning him to ash, however a person who goes so far as to sever a body part from said villain to keep as a trophey in a pickle jar, then chops the body into several bite-sized chunks and sets it on fire laughing clearly isn't a saint or even neutral-aligned in my opinion. Here's another scenerio: some powerful druids slaughter a group passing through the woods because Banites have been spotted within the group. Instead of raising the unknown persons within the group (who might be slaves, or perhaps travellers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time) the druids simply burn all the bodies without raising or interogating anyone. That to me is pretty evil since there is a possibility that someone slain was in fact innocent.

Very_Svensk: Killing can be viewed as an evil act regardless of the circumstances. This is why the death penalty doesn't exist in many countries such as Canada. Instead the mass murderer is detained in prison for a life sentence. Of course many people support the death penalty when used against extremely violent or sadistic criminals (look up the case of Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka). However would the executioner then become a murderer? Who are we to judge? The manga/anime Death Note delves into these questions very well. It's one of those gray areas again.

Both book of vile darkness and exalted deeds are silly books. If killing was an evil deed, then Robert would be lawful evil. Which he secretly very well may be, but you get my point.

Silent2001 wrote:

Are you asking me as a person, or one of my characters?

Seeeee the difference!

Darn.
Silent 1 - Svensk 0

Dead wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Even by Real Life morality this is blatantly idiotic, You need a lecture in the real world, when you have done that, and seen what suffering that has been commited around the world, when you have talked to soldiers that was told to stand by and not act when Serbian soldiers marched in on Srebrenitza, and then see a man broken completely by guilt because of it, then you can speak of the bloody merits of not fighting evils in the real world.

Oh don't even GO into Serbo-Croatia-Bosnian war please for you know nothing of it. You dont know what caused it, you dont know what happened, you dont know how it ended. So just dont go into that on this topic or I will really start lecturing you OOCly. Savy?

my uncle fought in that war dont fraggin go there either

oh and PS ..i stand by my statement about you comparing killing banites to killing paladins, and i compare your rl morality to not stopping the massacres in bosnia if you had the tools to do so

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Dead wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Even by Real Life morality this is blatantly idiotic, You need a lecture in the real world, when you have done that, and seen what suffering that has been commited around the world, when you have talked to soldiers that was told to stand by and not act when Serbian soldiers marched in on Srebrenitza, and then see a man broken completely by guilt because of it, then you can speak of the bloody merits of not fighting evils in the real world.

Oh don't even GO into Serbo-Croatia-Bosnian war please for you know nothing of it. You dont know what caused it, you dont know what happened, you dont know how it ended. So just dont go into that on this topic or I will really start lecturing you OOCly. Savy?

my uncle fought in that war dont fraggin go there either

I had family who got gased in WW2. But i happily engage in drama over wars and hitler and what not. Get over yourselves and stick to the topic. =D

*Shrugs* i take offence with idiots who try to lecture me, especially people i find morally despicable, and I do think Death is morally despicable, when he draws rl ethics into a game, tries to lecture me, and then i realise his morality is something i despise with all my heart, inaction when you know what is going on and you can do something, its as good as collaboration

Dead wrote:

PS. OP does not speak of faerun or d20. Maybe he is having a RL dilemma.

If I was speaking of real life this would be in Off Topic. I don't care what your RL views are, forgive me. But this is ONLY about FR, so stay on topic please people. So far I am seeing a lot of interesting points, from those who decided to keep it in the realm of FR at least.

Certain actions in my opinion are evil. Although in truth I don't see it as mattering too much since it is very hard to be completely of one alignment.

There is a reason that alignment is broken down into points and I think that when people discuss alignment they fall into the trap of looking at individual actions and trying to say if that action alone makes a character of a certain alignment.

No one is defined by one action. It is a culmination of all the actions that defines. Comit an evil action to do a greater good? Well then you commited an evil act but in all likelyhood the good act will outweigh it giving a net gain of good.

Being of a certain alignment should not prevent a character from commiting an action against it, the character and their actions are meant to define thier alignment, their alignment is not supposed to define them.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

*Shrugs* i take offence with idiots who try to lecture me, especially people i find morally despicable, and I do think Death is morally despicable, when he draws rl ethics into a game, tries to lecture me, and then i realise his morality is something i despise with all my heart, inaction when you know what is going on and you can do something, its as good as collaboration

Calm down?

Very_Svensk wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

*Shrugs* i take offence with idiots who try to lecture me, especially people i find morally despicable, and I do think Death is morally despicable, when he draws rl ethics into a game, tries to lecture me, and then i realise his morality is something i despise with all my heart, inaction when you know what is going on and you can do something, its as good as collaboration

Calm down?

if he stops lecturing me, i might calm down..might.

Last edited by Dead on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 18:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Dead wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Even by Real Life morality this is blatantly idiotic, You need a lecture in the real world, when you have done that, and seen what suffering that has been commited around the world, when you have talked to soldiers that was told to stand by and not act when Serbian soldiers marched in on Srebrenitza, and then see a man broken completely by guilt because of it, then you can speak of the bloody merits of not fighting evils in the real world.

Oh don't even GO into Serbo-Croatia-Bosnian war please for you know nothing of it. You dont know what caused it, you dont know what happened, you dont know how it ended. So just dont go into that on this topic or I will really start lecturing you OOCly. Savy?

my uncle fought in that war dont fraggin go there either

oh and PS ..i stand by my statement about you comparing killing banites to killing paladins, and i compare your rl morality to not stopping the massacres in bosnia if you had the tools to do so

Yeah sure. Denmark had a great role in that war.

And first of all my nick is DEAD not DEATH. Those are two different terms in English.
Second of all, your oppinion is not very valid since you are the one who RPs a Lathanderite which claims that there is NO HOPE for Banites or other evil folk (your paladin should AT LEAST get fallen for this). But since your whole argumenting system and the way your brain is processing the informations given seems to be rather false and incoherent I shall ignore your future comments.

You can, within reason, use any set of moral standards when considering your character's alignment. After all, each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other.

This water gets a little muddier when considering people who think they are good and think their actions are worthy when really they are malign and they're just too deluded to see it. I think often a DM call needs to be made in situations like that, as if the player already knows what they're going to be roleplaying and how they want to roleplay it then the only party who really has a stake in the character's alignment is the DMs and the game's mechanics, which again are up to the staff and not the player to decide.

Dead wrote:

On NATO side?

He was in the danish part of UNPROFORs Nordic battalion, i think it was called nordbat 2 or something like that, he was a leopard tank driver.

and ps..i really hope you are not joking about denmark having a great part in that war, we where some of the first to actually fire at serbians

Dead wrote:

Yeah sure. Denmark had a great role in that war.

And first of all my nick is DEAD not DEATH. Those are two different terms in English.
Second of all, your oppinion is not very valid since you are the one who RPs a Lathanderite which claims that there is NO HOPE for Banites or other evil folk (your paladin should AT LEAST get fallen for this). But since your whole argumenting system and the way your brain is processing the informations given seems to be rather false and incoherent I shall ignore your future comments.

first of all, people who use such lame things as a arguement are twits
Secondly hope comes in many forms, and you clearly have no idea what hope is if you let banites walk free risking the lives of innosents by letting monsters walk free, monsters that worship forces so dark as bane, i do not have to defend my actions to you as you are just another idiot who cannot see the big picture and weeps about redemption at all costs (including innocent lives) as long as its a pc char and not a npc..cause fuck..butchering goblins is okey as long as it dosnt have a player name..you call me a hypocrite..i call you one idiot

and i say again Dont lecture me on my rp oocly

You make me sad, but anyway!

State of mind is a determining factor of almost any deed. If it was not, there would be no difference between the following two: Gorthod carefully plans and then follows through with the killing of Robert in cold blood by stabbing him repeatitly and gruesomely in an alley with a dagger (First Degree Murder). Gorthod stabs Robert in an alley after they had an unpleasant exchange of words to wound him out of an uncontrolled fit of anger, but he dies as a result of it (Manslaughter). Then to simplyfy it that the circumstances are gone to simply say killing is evil, well then there would be no difference between first degree murder and self-defense or defense of others. In all of them you simply killed, if you discount state of mine and the factors of the situation. In this case the gods are dimwits, and Robert should go into the wall on the fugue plane out of protest.

Last edited by Ðraco on Wed, Feb 08 2012, 18:36 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Azaliah wrote:

Hey Draco, I would highly recommend reading The Book of Vile Darkness and The Book of Exalted Deeds for clarification of what is evil and good.

I've read Book of Vile Darkness thoroughly, but the Exalted Deeds bore me to death, and not all source books are 100% accurate with Amian Lore. Hence this topic.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Dead wrote:

On NATO side?

He was in the danish part of UNPROFORs Nordic battalion, i think it was called nordbat 2 or something like that, he was a leopard tank driver.

You gotta be kidding me, stay on the right topic people. If you want to talk about whose relative fought in what war, take it to PMs.

edit: typos

Ðraco wrote:

Azaliah wrote:

Hey Draco, I would highly recommend reading The Book of Vile Darkness and The Book of Exalted Deeds for clarification of what is evil and good.

I've read Book of Vile Darkness thoroughly, but the Exalted Deeds bore me to death, and not all source books are 100% accurate with Aman Lore. Hence this topic.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

Dead wrote:

On NATO side?

He was in the danish part of UNPROFORs Nordic battalion, i think it was called nordbat 2 or something like that, he was a leopard tank driver.

You gotta be kidding me, stay on the right topic people. If you want to talk about whose relative fought in what war, take it to PMs.

sorry, and yes book of vile deeds are a good source, atleast the section on evil deeds is informative, atleast in my oppion

Well, there is a variable number of alignment points you get. Maybe how you kill someone, or why might determine the imaginary "shifts" and the amount.

If you lot can't discuss things in a respectful way I'll lock this. We're not children are we? Nope. So be nice.

Silent2001 wrote:

... actions are why we have allignment points.
Torture someone? Take an evil point.

Evil and good are absolutes in this setting.

Killing, in my opinion, is always evil.

Killing, in my characters opinion, is how their world works. It can be evil and it can be good.

What I tried to explain in great details on page 1. This isn't a philisophical thing guys. Its a static definite. We say what's evil, whats good. Killing is evil. Saving a baby and its mother from a falling building is good. You get evil points for killing, good points for saving the baby and its mother.

Scenerio: Your character saves a woman from a collapsing tower. She clings to him and thanks him greatly for his deed. (The world tally's one point of good to his alignment), but deep in his mind his intent is much more foul, much darker. He plans to take the woman now, kidnap her, enslave her to his desires, and then slowly unravel her flesh, all for his pleasures. So it goes as planned, and so the deed is done. Over the course of years the man slowly puts his plan into action, and soon it is done. Her battered decaying corpse left to rot in the cellar of his seedy house in Cordor. (The world tally's one point to his evil alignment).

Note that even though his intent was evil, he didn't recieve the points till the act was done. Because redemption is also a factor, changing mind is a factor.

Scenerio 2: The dark knight sweeps into the village, his army battles back the raiding orcs. The stallion he rides, dark as the night itself, rears back and shrieks, freezing the blood of its enemies, in the name of its master. (The world tallys one good point to his alignment, for saving the village). Immediatly he begins to round up the villages, chaining them together in a line. A bloodied slab of rock is brought forth, it smells of death and bile. The villages grow restless, some begin to scream, one breaks and tries to flee. He is cut down by arrows before the man even reaches the nearest guards. One by one the dark knight orders the execution of the villages upon the rock. He stays for each death, and his eyes seem to soak in the very souls of the dying. (The world tallys one point to evil, because he has murdered all the villagers.) In the Dark Knights mind however, he regrets what he must do. Despite this gruesome task though, he knows it must be undertaken. Because among the villagers is one who is known to be branded the next incarnation of a great evil, foretold by their most powerful mages, and delivered by the gods themselves. For this reason, to protect his people, he kills the village, and he memories each death to punish himself, so they are never forgotten.

In this scenerio, the dark knight is doing good, then evil, and despite his intent, he has still done evil. His intent is good, to protect the innocents of his country, to stop the deaths of millions and prevent great disaster. But his actions, are evil. So to the world, he is marked as evil by those who care to mark such things. But to himself, his men, his countrymen, his family, he is a good man who did what he must.

Good and Evil

Who is online