(07-21-2014, 01:47 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:(07-21-2014, 01:43 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Oh I agree, he's not good in a D&D sense, but I don't think he's evil. I'm just saying it's not that useful to try to peg leaders of states into the holes that the alignment system gives.
He's not eating people, he's not sexually molesting children, he's a politician who is looking at the long term health of Ul'dah. Yes, he's also doing it for his own gain, but this is Ul'dah, everyone is looking out for their own gain on the side.
Maybe he could be a kinder guy, but he's not the kind of evil that would set off the 'detect evil' radars of every D&D paladin in the room.
There are quite a few people that would tell you (and yes, I happen to be one of them) that evil is evil.
Little evils aren't just "lesser." Â Someone is suffering for each one of them, though you may never see their faces. Â No, he's not eating people. Â No, he's not molesting children. Â But he may very well be causing marginalized people who are already very vulnerable to become more vulnerable to the kind of predators that do eat people and do molest children.
Now tell me this: If you place someone - through your own actions - in a situation where they are made helpless in the face of a predator like that, can you really say that your hands are clean of what happens to that person?
If you create or reinforce an environment where child predators and serial killers are allowed to operate with relative freedom, and further weaken what defenses the poor and endangered have against them, are you truly innocent of the crimes done to the weak and defenseless?
The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.
Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.
Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?
