(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.

(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."  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.  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.

(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.  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."  An action is either evil, or it is good, but intent - while it does matter - doesn't excuse you from committing an evil act.  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.  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.  If a Good character commits an evil act - by action or inaction - regardless of their ultimate intent, they will drift towards evil.  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."  He may do things that benefit others, but there is no way on Hydaelyn's Green Eorzea that he is Good-aligned.

(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.  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.  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.  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.  But Gridania has already refused multiple refugees on the borders of their city-state.  Check out the Quarrymill questlines sometime!

(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.

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

(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?

(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.

(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."  Someone is suffering for each one of them, though you may never see their faces.  No, he's not eating people.  No, he's not molesting children.  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?