Forums of the Megaverse®

If one truly beleive in what they are doing and that it is right and just then yes what we percieve as evil could be perceived as good from the other side. Just ask any suicide bomber

I think this post should be in the GM section.

In Palladium, it's not your moral outlook that determines your actual Alignment, but your actions.

Nazi SS Soldier: ANY possible alignment from Principled to Diabolic....depending on what he did in the war. Even if he otherwise accepts Nazi propaganda regarding the 'inferior races.'

German citizen: ANY possible alignment.

Allied Soldier: ANY possible alignment from Principled to Diabolic....depending on what he did in the war. Even if that soldier is in normal circumstances a gentle, God-fearing soul who goes to church every Sunday in peacetime.

Average Nazi Death Camp Guard: ANY possible alignment, but probably Anarchist, or perhaps even Unprincipled (if he's the type of guy who tried to slip his extra portions to the Jews inside the camp, but otherwise won't risk his skin in any way to help them escape).

The Nazi Doctors and Guards who performed the actual mass killings and/or experiments: Miscreant or Diabolic evil ONLY.

Let me disagree about the mass killings alignment restriction. Example: Himmler TRULY believed that the Jew was not human. To up and kill a herd of cattle or to do experimentations on lab rats because they're just animals doesn't make you evil. If you truly and honestly buy off on that, you would be more of a pawn in powerful places rather than an evil man.

Aaryq wrote:Let me disagree about the mass killings alignment restriction. Example: Himmler TRULY believed that the Jew was not human. To up and kill a herd of cattle or to do experimentations on lab rats because they're just animals doesn't make you evil. If you truly and honestly buy off on that, you would be more of a pawn in powerful places rather than an evil man.

I understand where you're coming from, but in Palladium, that just doesn't fit as an "alignment excuse."

Why, you ask??

Because the Old Ones, and the Splugorth, and just about every other Alien Intelligence, God, Deevil and Demon out there sees "lower" sentient life in exactly the same way -in fact, the philosophical issue of "We're allowed to step on you because we think that you're ants compared to us" is a recurring theme in Kevin's books, and why, according to him, most of those creatures are evil in the first place.

Touche, corn. You have bested me. My statement is withdrawn.

Aaryq wrote:Touche, corn. You have bested me. My statement is withdrawn.

It's not about getting Internet Wins (except maybe in Sound Off), it's just that I really like what I see as a rather unique take on Evil on Kevin Siembieda's part.


I wonder how evil WE would eventually be if we got to live forever??
( There's only so much good you can do before you get bored and want to start breaking living things. )

Steelbreeze wrote:This all makes a lot of sense but lets remember that in war time, generally soldiers must do what they are commanded to do or they will be shot. Alignment be damned, they will more than likely obey if only to get home alive so they can take care of their families (as in the case with the nazi's, the red army, and many more).

So I still think this sort of question is more of a situational problem that shouldn't really have an all encompassing rule.

Would you say that if a company of soldiers in the Western Empire was ordered to torch and kill all in a small village, that all who were there should immediatly have their alignments switched because they were forced to comply? I mean what if after they tranfered to another unit out of grief? they would still be evil? I think no, they would more likely have nightmares and try to make up for it (or drink themselves to death). Even if some of them didn't personally do any killing or burning, their very presence contributed to containing and preventing any from leaving with their lives.

To the OP I believe there is a difference between committing atrocities under the influence of propaganda and being forced to thru threat of death. I would say No, you couldn't bend the rules of alignment thru propaganda but could thru certain instances of self preservation.

I'm pretty tired so hopefully this makes sense.... it just seems to me that this doesn't have quite as cut and dry of an answer.

I think the real issue is more or less that Good people sometimes do evil things, and vice versa.

A good soldiger can sometimes follow an evil order and still keep his alignment. Corruption is a slow process. It's perfectly valid for a Principled-aligned soldiger to participate in a massacre then wake up years later screaming at the memory.

People behave differently when directed to do something by a figure of authority. They also behave differently in times of duress. Wartime counts as both. You can be ordered to do something you would find morally repugnant and/or find yourself in a life or death situation that requires you to do something morally repugnant to save your own ass or that of your buddy's.

Does this change your internal moral compass? No, your needle points the same direction (more or less) it just doesn't match your course like it normally does.

That said, this dichotomy of behaving other than as directed by ones internal moral compass can and often does leave lasting, negative, psychological repercussions... mainly feelings of regret, guilt, and self doubt. Combined with PTSD and you could end up with an emotional cripple who will never be the same and has problems functioning in the society they return to after the war.

Ah isn't war grand.

Thinyser wrote:People behave differently when directed to do something by a figure of authority. They also behave differently in times of duress. Wartime counts as both. You can be ordered to do something you would find morally repugnant and/or find yourself in a life or death situation that requires you to do something morally repugnant to save your own ass or that of your buddy's.

Does this change your internal moral compass? No, your needle points the same direction (more or less) it just doesn't match your course like it normally does.

That said, this dichotomy of behaving other than as directed by ones internal moral compass can and often does leave lasting, negative, psychological repercussions... mainly feelings of regret, guilt, and self doubt. Combined with PTSD and you could end up with an emotional cripple who will never be the same and has problems functioning in the society they return to after the war.

Ah isn't war grand.

More eloquently said than my post

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Thinyser wrote:People behave differently when directed to do something by a figure of authority. They also behave differently in times of duress. Wartime counts as both. You can be ordered to do something you would find morally repugnant and/or find yourself in a life or death situation that requires you to do something morally repugnant to save your own ass or that of your buddy's.

Does this change your internal moral compass? No, your needle points the same direction (more or less) it just doesn't match your course like it normally does.

That said, this dichotomy of behaving other than as directed by ones internal moral compass can and often does leave lasting, negative, psychological repercussions... mainly feelings of regret, guilt, and self doubt. Combined with PTSD and you could end up with an emotional cripple who will never be the same and has problems functioning in the society they return to after the war.

Ah isn't war grand.

More eloquently said than my post

Thanks

and though bluntly stated you were dead right about it haunting them years later.

Very Ninja, I still have issues that stem from my time over there.

the Milgram experiment shows quite clearly that for human beings, authority figures (even those merely perceived as authority figures), including previously unknown to the individual authority figures, can circumvent normal moral programming.
in the experiment individuals were given a role in what they beleived was an experiment in how electric shock reinforcement effects mental performance. rather like the opening bit on ghostbusters. the apparent test subject would be asked to answer questions or asked to read cards. if he got it wrong, the volunteer was supposed to flip a switch giving the 'test subject' electric shocks. the more they got wrong, the stronger the shock. at the higher levels the 'test subject' would sometimes have to be strapped into his chair..and would thrash around like a hollywood electric chair electrocution.

it was all an act to test the reactions of the 'volunteer' to being ordered to basically torture someone. the volunteers were normal sane, fairly non-violent people. but virtually all of them were willing to basically torture someone, just because they were told to flip switches by an authority figure. often one they had never met before. mainly because they had been told that "it's nessicary", "you won't be held responsible" "you have no other choice, you must continue" and so on by said authority figure.

the way the human brain is wired, orders from above short circut our normal decision making processes. probably due to the social nature of our minds. we may not like it, we may hate ourselves for doing it, but darn if we aren't going to do what we're told is required for the good of the larger group.


frankly, the larger issue we're discussing is Moraldisengagement. the ability for people to convince themselves their normal ethical frameworks don't apply to specific actions.either through justifications, or displacing the responsibilty, or whatever.

frankly, the intersection of ethics and psychology is such a messy area, you can't really hold to an absolutist viewpoint and have it work.