RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:24 PM**

(07-21-2014, 12:46 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think only one person on the syndicate can possibly be seen as evil, and that's the one orchestrating the events of the 2.3 patch. As far as Lorilito, scamming refugees and such doesn't make you evil.

An interesting semi quote I heard once is that, "In order to be an effective leader of a sovereign state, you need to be willing to let tens of thousands of people die." In a normal sense, that would make someone a monster, but with few exceptions in human history it's always been the state of things. Leaders have to make decisions, and often there is no perfect answer. I don't think you can apply adventurer D&D morality to the syndicate.

For example, lets say that he did do everything Nanamo wanted, what if the coffers ran out and they couldn't pay the brass blades? What if it caused massive inflation to the economy of the city and food shortages? What if Ul'dah lost it's competitive edge financially to a place like Limsa (which conveniently doesn't have to deal with refugee problems) and became a second rate power.

In order to be a good leader of a country with as tenuous as Ul'dah's is, you have to make hard decisions. Now it's possible Lorilito could find a way to help everyone and keep Ul'dahs might, but I wouldn't judge him so harshly for what he does.

It really depends on how you define "evil." Â In a strictly D&D sense, yes, scamming refugees does make you evil because the act is an evil act and pushes you further along the continuum towards Evil. Â If you scam them enough times, your alignment will shift, no matter how good you are on paper.

You also need to consider intent in your equations. Â Now, your "what-ifs" might very well be accurate, but what we've seen in cutscenes within the game itself shows that Lolorito's motivations are wholly selfish and self-aggrandizing. Â His actions might have some side benefits that are good for Ul'dah as a whole, but the only reason he does anything is for his own benefit. Â The fact that his motives are wholly selfish is very important, and something you really should keep in mind.

By the way, a leader that lets tens of thousands of his or her own people die when they could have prevented it is still a monster, no matter what justifications and excuses they may offer.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:29 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:24 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 12:46 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think only one person on the syndicate can possibly be seen as evil, and that's the one orchestrating the events of the 2.3 patch. As far as Lorilito, scamming refugees and such doesn't make you evil.

An interesting semi quote I heard once is that, "In order to be an effective leader of a sovereign state, you need to be willing to let tens of thousands of people die." In a normal sense, that would make someone a monster, but with few exceptions in human history it's always been the state of things. Leaders have to make decisions, and often there is no perfect answer. I don't think you can apply adventurer D&D morality to the syndicate.

For example, lets say that he did do everything Nanamo wanted, what if the coffers ran out and they couldn't pay the brass blades? What if it caused massive inflation to the economy of the city and food shortages? What if Ul'dah lost it's competitive edge financially to a place like Limsa (which conveniently doesn't have to deal with refugee problems) and became a second rate power.

In order to be a good leader of a country with as tenuous as Ul'dah's is, you have to make hard decisions. Now it's possible Lorilito could find a way to help everyone and keep Ul'dahs might, but I wouldn't judge him so harshly for what he does.

It really depends on how you define "evil." Â In a strictly D&D sense, yes, scamming refugees does Â make you evil because the act is an evil act and pushes you further along the continuum towards Evil. Â If you scam them enough times, your alignment will shift, no matter how good you are on paper.

You also need to consider intent in your equations. Â Now, your "what-ifs" might very well be accurate, but what we've seen in cutscenes within the game itself shows that Lolorito's motivations are wholly selfish and self-aggrandizing. Â His actions might have some side benefits that are good for Ul'dah as a whole, but the only reason he does anything is for his own benefit. Â The fact that his motives are wholly selfish is very important, and something you really should keep in mind.

By the way, a leader that lets tens of thousands of his or her own people die when they could have prevented it is still a monster, no matter what justifications and excuses they may offer.

Eh, a good example is the Coventry raids in WWII. The British had broken the enigma code, and knew there would be a large air raid on the city of Coventry. If they took any action to protect the city, such has having fighters ready to meet them, increasing air defences, or evacuating civilians, they'd give away that they had access to German communications. So Churchill did nothing, and let thousands of civilians die, civilians he could have saved. However he did it because he thought the enigma code was more important than the lives of those civilians.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

Edit: Apparently there is some disagreement if Churchill actually knew the target or not. But it was just an example, there were lots of such decisions made that cost lives in order to protect the enigma code.

Coatleque · **07-21-2014, 01:34 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

A tough decision to make either way. At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:38 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Eh, a good example is the Coventry raids in WWII. The British had broken the enigma code, and knew there would be a large air raid on the city of Coventry. If they took any action to protect the city, such has having fighters ready to meet them, increasing air defences, or evacuating civilians, they'd give away that they had access to German communications. So Churchill did nothing, and let thousands of civilians die, civilians he could have saved. However he did it because he thought the enigma code was more important than the lives of those civilians.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

That doesn't make his actions any less evil, and it doesn't mean that the man himself isn't evil.

Here's the thing, when you start looking at alignments, you run into this kind of shitty dilemma.

Lawful Evil can swing almost any action without drifting away from its alignment if said action ultimately benefits the character's long term plans. Â Yes, even seemingly-altruistic actions may not affect the character's Evil Alignment depending on the intent behind them.

Good, on the other hand - especially Lawful Good - does not have that "wiggle room." Â An action is either evil, or it is good, but intent - while it does matter - doesn't excuse you from committing an evil act. Â A Good character that allows thousands of people to die when they could have saved them will receive evil points - even if their intent was noble ("I have to save this really important thing that could decide the war").

In terms of alignment, if Lolorito was a Good-aligned character, he would no longer be a Good-aligned character at this point because he has committed far too many evil acts in pursuit of his goals. Â Now, you can argue that the morals of the state differ from the morals of the man, but if the character is Good aligned, it doesn't matter. Â If a Good character commits an evil act - by action or inaction - regardless of their ultimate intent, they will drift towards evil. Â But if an Evil character commits an act of altruism or good, their intent is taken into account when you consider whether the character has drifted towards Good or not.

From this perspective, there's about a 0% chance that Lolorito is anything that could be described as "good." Â He may do things that benefit others, but there is no way on Hydaelyn's Green Eorzea that he is Good-aligned.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:39 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:34 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

A tough decision to make either way. At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:40 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:34 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

A tough decision to make either way. Â At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

This is an excellent point, and it's part of why such an action would garner you Evil points in an alignment-based system.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:42 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:39 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:34 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

A tough decision to make either way. Â At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

But that's kind of the point. Â It's the illustration of how governance is soul-sucking and tends to both destroy the good people who try to be forces for change, and exalts those who are evil who pursue power for purely personal gain.

i.e. Yes, actually, government is evil in most RPGs. Â Even the good ones.

As far as Gridania goes, I really doubt the Elementals could be roused that far, considering their weakened state after the Calamity. Â But Gridania has already refused multiple refugees on the borders of their city-state. Â Check out the Quarrymill questlines sometime!

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:43 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:38 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: That doesn't make his actions any less evil, and it doesn't mean that the man himself isn't evil.

Here's the thing, when you start looking at alignments, you run into this kind of shitty dilemma.

Lawful Evil can swing almost any action without drifting away from its alignment if said action ultimately benefits the character's long term plans. Â Yes, even seemingly-altruistic actions may not affect the character's Evil Alignment depending on the intent behind them.

Good, on the other hand - especially Lawful Good - does not have that "wiggle room." Â An action is either evil, or it is good, but intent - while it does matter - doesn't excuse you from committing an evil act. Â A Good character that allows thousands of people to die when they could have saved them will receive evil points - even if their intent was noble ("I have to save this really important thing that could decide the war").

In terms of alignment, if Lolorito was a Good-aligned character, he would no longer be a Good-aligned character at this point because he has committed far too many evil acts in pursuit of his goals. Â Now, you can argue that the morals of the state differ from the morals of the man, but if the character is Good aligned, it doesn't matter. Â If a Good character commits an evil act - by action or inaction - regardless of their ultimate intent, they will drift towards evil. Â But if an Evil character commits an act of altruism or good, their intent is taken into account when you consider whether the character has drifted towards Good or not.

From this perspective, there's about a 0% chance that Lolorito is anything that could be described as "good." Â He may do things that benefit others, but there is no way on Hydaelyn's Green Eorzea that he is Good-aligned.

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.

Kage · **07-21-2014, 01:44 PM**

I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:46 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:42 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:39 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:34 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

A tough decision to make either way. Â At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

But that's kind of the point. Â It's the illustration of how governance is soul-sucking and tends to both destroy the good people who try to be forces for change, and exalts those who are evil who pursue power for purely personal gain.

i.e. Yes, actually, government is evil in most RPGs. Â Even the good ones.

As far as Gridania goes, I really doubt the Elementals could be roused that far, considering their weakened state after the Calamity. Â But Gridania has already refused multiple refugees on the borders of their city-state. Â Check out the Quarrymill questlines sometime!

I didn't know that about quarry mill. But it just shows then, the often maligned Ul'dah and it's syndicate is actually the most altrustic and humanitarian city state. The syndicate grumbles about it, but they still pay the bills. I think you could make an argument that Ul'dah is actually the least evil of the three city states currently. Ul'dah at least tries to help, rather than just pushing people away.

Though Limsa might help too, I've never played their story.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:47 PM**

(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?

Coatleque · **07-21-2014, 01:49 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:44 PM)ExKage Wrote: ... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

Neutrality is always the most difficult alignment to play. In my experience, the only characters who can truly play it off are the mentally insane ones. To be entirely neutral means you need to have exactly 0 sense of right and wrong because there can be no real motive behind your actions.

I would place Jin'li as a Neutral-Evil character, for example. He thinks his methods are right, clearly they are not. If it wasn't for the collars, bombs, and poison; If he was just a tad more "kind", he would fall closer to True Neutral.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 01:51 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:44 PM)ExKage Wrote: I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

Generally speaking, if what you're doing doesn't really harm anyone, it's neutral. Â If it harms someone else (or even yourself), it's probably evil. Â If it benefits someone else, it's probably good.

When it comes to an evil character, of course, intent matters a lot if they're doing something beneficial for another person. Â For that matter, when it comes to good acts, intent matters a lot. Â If you're doing it for personal gain, it's not really a good act and you probably wouldn't be awarded good points for it.

I should add: It's totally okay for personal gain to be a side benefit. But if it's the main benefit (or some evil plot you've come up with is the main benefit), then you're going to get reduced good credit from it, or none at all.

(07-21-2014, 01:46 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I didn't know that about quarry mill. But it just shows then, the often maligned Ul'dah and it's syndicate is actually the most altrustic and humanitarian city state. The syndicate grumbles about it, but they still pay the bills. I think you could make an argument that Ul'dah is actually the least evil of the three city states currently. Ul'dah at least tries to help, rather than just pushing people away.

Though Limsa might help too, I've never played their story.

We could argue this all day. Â Gridania doesn't leave her people to starve in the streets. Â As far as I can tell, if you lose your money in Ul'dah, it doesn't matter if you were born there, have relations 10 generations back, they'll still watch you starve and not lift a finger. Â In Gridania, people are actually taken care of. Â They simply won't allow in more refugees than the Twelveswood can handle (although if you do the Quarrymill questline, you'll note it's one Conjurer and the situation as to why they refuse the refugees is kind of...weird... Â It's not explained well at all lol).

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **07-21-2014, 01:52 PM**

Couple notes on Gridania and the Elementals.Â

It's more likely that the Elementals would have chased out the refugees pre-calamity out of their own anger.

Post-Calamity though, they'd most likely whisper, or otherwise tell Kan-E-Senna to make them leave. We've certainly seen how the normally peaceful Sylphs reacted when they thought their forest was going to be taken away.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:54 PM**

(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?

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Syndicate 'Lawful Neutral' group (some 2.3 story spoilers)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes