Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone is genuinely trying to be a better person and turn their life around is there really any good reason to complain about why their doing it?

Whether they don't want to go to prison, had a brush with death and are thinking about their mortality, or just had a epiphany about the way their life is going, as long as it's a sincere effort to better themselves I'm all for it. Those are some of my favorite kind of stories. A bad guy going straight.

If you want to say his efforts don't count because they involve Christianity and someone that knows they've been a sinner, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I disagree.

That being said, this is just a story so it's all semantics anyway you slice it. The guy could end up being the big bad of this arc for all I know.

Now THAT is a question for the ages.
Also, does it really matter if the result is basically the same?

The difference being that other motivations are vastly more sustainable and reliable. How do you know that his solution to the fear of being punished is something we would consider good? Fear, generally speaking, doesn't make a sound mind and rational decisions.

Also, as Marcus said...

To give him hope? Fear is only a good motivator if what it is motivating you toward carries the hope of being away from the thing you fear.

Meaning that "fear of punishment" does not necessarily mean "doing good".

It could also mean" make a deal with the punisher", "get rid of the punishment altogether" (not realistic here) or, in this case, declare yourself an atheist (although admittedly I don't know how that would work if Gods are real. Is it enough to simply state it somewhere loudly?)
 
Meaning that "fear of punishment" does not necessarily mean "doing good".
Generally, no. That's why the SI disagrees with Sinestro. On the other hand, this man is doing good while motivated by fear.
It could also mean" make a deal with the punisher", "get rid of the punishment altogether" (not realistic here) or, in this case, declare yourself an atheist (although admittedly I don't know how that would work if Gods are real. Is it enough to simply state it somewhere loudly?)
It sort of doesn't. Your soul will go somewhere. A really hardcore atheist might become a ghost... Or they might be draw into The Land of the Unliving, which would be very bad.
 
The difference being that other motivations are vastly more sustainable and reliable. How do you know that his solution to the fear of being punished is something we would consider good? Fear, generally speaking, doesn't make a sound mind and rational decisions.

Also, as Marcus said...



Meaning that "fear of punishment" does not necessarily mean "doing good".

It could also mean" make a deal with the punisher", "get rid of the punishment altogether" (not realistic here) or, in this case, declare yourself an atheist (although admittedly I don't know how that would work if Gods are real. Is it enough to simply state it somewhere loudly?)

I agree with fear being exhausting. Doing something good should feel rewarding at the same time as doing something bad should be punished (degree and severity may vary according to personal philosophy). It seems to work out for most believers of faith.

Consider this in this particular case:
Mr Edge is at the very start of his moral reformation. While fear might have been a motivator initially, there is a chance that will either develop more altruistic motives or he will come to see the rewards of doing good (fame, admiration, the warm fuzzy feeling you get in your stomach when petting a puppy).
There is still the chance he will suffer a breakdown if he continues to let fear be the sole engine of his chance. He will probably turn to religion again in that case and get some type of sooth-saying from his priest.

Also, OL is a utalitarian right? Or something like that? And Mr Edge seems to be moving in the right direction, so why waste time and resources on another thing and interfere with that.
 
It could also mean" make a deal with the punisher", "get rid of the punishment altogether" (not realistic here) or, in this case, declare yourself an atheist (although admittedly I don't know how that would work if Gods are real. Is it enough to simply state it somewhere loudly?)
I think that you need a replacement afterlife, even if your replacement afterlife it to detach your soul from any plane of existance what-so-ever and desolve into the background energies.
Generally, no. That's why the SI disagrees with Sinestro. On the other hand, this man is doing good while motivated by fear.
Possibly something to look into when the risk to reward ratio is a bit more...Viable.
It sort of doesn't. Your soul will go somewhere. A really hardcore atheist might become a ghost... Or they might be draw into The Land of the Unliving, which would be very bad.
It seems sort of biased that it could only connect with either heaven or hell.
Also, OL is a utalitarian right? Or something like that? And Mr Edge seems to be moving in the right direction, so why waste time and resources on another thing and interfere with that.
Because this is DC; i fully expect demons to start trying to make deals with him or some shit.
 
Last edited:
I... genuinely can't follow this. Its not that I don't understand the... motives(?) of the... characters(?) or anything specific like that(though, I don't), I just... do not understand what this is depicting. There are a lot frames where people are doing seemingly unrelated things, there's a lot of apparently conflicting dialogue that oscillates between "communist revolutionary speech" and "Alex Jone's Infowars", I can't tell who is doing what or even keep track of characters... what is this?

What's there to not understand? The international community does nothing, when some evil guys with rayguns coup a country, confiscate and abolish all private property, imprison or execute the dissenters, and their enforcers spout lines of philosophy that wouldn't be out of place in Apokolips. At the same time, at least the Neanderthal part of the population is free to loot and own all the private property (that no longer exists) they want, as long as they call the police working for the now fascist regime fascists, so the new regime is at least concious about subspecies rights.

Seems perfectly consistent to me.
 
Last edited:
Criminals repenting due to hard evidence that angels and demons exist is exactly the type of social consequences that I like to see from stories. Demons make good antagonsists and target tractice for the main characters, but it's nice seeing that their existence actually has effects on the world at large.

Has Paul investigated how hard it would be to make a ward that gives a false image on empathic vision?
Given that the SI's ability is unique, it's not in his best interest to have it studied extensively. Any research done on it could theoretically be used to counter him, while if he is the only one who knows the mechanics of it it can't be leaked to his enemies. Actually, it's better if he doesn't even know theoretically how to counter his own ability or how precisely it works, because then it can't be ripped from his head with telepathy.
 
Given that the SI's ability is unique, it's not in his best interest to have it studied extensively. Any research done on it could theoretically be used to counter him, while if he is the only one who knows the mechanics of it it can't be leaked to his enemies. Actually, it's better if he doesn't even know theoretically how to counter his own ability or how precisely it works, because then it can't be ripped from his head with telepathy.
But it is blocked with magic in general. Presumably a regular scry ward from a competent practitioner can give a false image so making one for emotions might already be doable for competent mages or with a few hours of research.
 
Is "being good because you fear eternal, horrific torture" really something "genuinely nice"?

In itself? No, but, to be fair, the believers motivated by that usually also believe that the values so enforced on them are legitimately right ones, so they can see it as also being "helped" to want to do the genuinely right thing, not as just being forced to bow to the tyranny of a cruel higher being, as I would see it.
 
Last edited:
Well, I mean, DC is pretty biased in favor of Jehovah. I'm pretty sure their official policy is that the Abrahamic God is THE capital G God of the DC universe.

Though I've heard that some stories involve the Godwave, a wave of energy released from The Source that's responsible for creating all the various gods. In those stories, Jehovah is still the big kid on the block. But the reason given is that he received a disproportionately huge piece of the Godwave pie.

But either way, Capital G or lowercase g, Jehovah is supposed to be the single most powerful being in DC.
 
But it is blocked with magic in general. Presumably a regular scry ward from a competent practitioner can give a false image so making one for emotions might already be doable for competent mages or with a few hours of research.
No, as they don't know what the image is supposed to look like, and their best guesses would be laughably simplistic and obvious. Blocking it is far easier, and most ways that would actually fool it would work for mind controlling him.
 
So, his reform is genuine, just needs more time... in the interests of reducing Hell's recruitment, when does he get offered a rejuvenation?

follow him as

EW countermeasure
I'm drawing a blank on this acronym.

try and straighten them out.
try and straighten them out?

Your argued intelligently
You argued intelligently
 
Last edited:
So, his reform is genuine, just needs more time... in the interests of reducing Hell's recruitment, when does he get offered a rejuvenation?
Probably never. The SI isn't sufficiently interested in his wellbeing.
follow him as
try and straighten them out.
try and straighten them out?
Your argued intelligently
You argued intelligently
Thank you, corrected.
EW countermeasure
I'm drawing a blank on this acronym.
Electronic Warfare.
 
Wow, what a crappy place that DC universe is. I mean, even if you get heaven, could you imagine a trillion years there without having any say so in the matter?

I mean, that's essentially how I view my own religion, so... Yeah, it's an existential nightmare. I'm planning to argue for non-existence myself. Better nothing than eternal torment, or having all of my "objectionable" bits scooped out to make room for the puppet strings. Of course, there's so much about me that fits the definition of "objectionable" that it really isn't that different from non-existence in the first place, depending on how aware of the process I have to be. I certainly wouldn't be able to pick me out of a lineup after that.

Does anyone know of any good places to talk about stuff like this, by the by? Most religious spaces aren't actually good for discussion, surprise surprise, and most non-religious spaces either aren't interested in religious discourse, or just want to shit on "those nutjobs".
 
Last edited:
EW countermeasure field detected. Ring function not impaired.
In the real world, such a thing would be called an "ECM field" ("electronic countermeasures") and such things that would interfere with the operation of such an effect are called "ECCM" ("electronic counter-countermeasures").

Also, the SMBC gets it slightly but importantly wrong. It doesn't matter what A is made of. The important thing is that B and C are made of fire. Even an amoral idiot can pick D if A and D are the only squares on offer.
It doesn't get it wrong at all. B and C are not stable -- BECAUSE it's so bad to be on the bad side of these, and BECAUSE you can't control or predict what the other person will do, then attempting to exploit one of these gives you the RISK of falling into A. But by the default formulation of the dilemma, it's better to fall into A than into B or C. If you assume that the other person is going to make decisions using the same kind of intelligent reasoning as you, then that means that doing what you like is the best choice -- either you get the best reward, or you get a lesser punishment.

That's why you have to teach either that A is made of fire, or that D is valuable.

If you teach that A is made of fire, then you would never want to act in such a way that the other person's choice could send you to A. Choosing to do what you like then means that the other person gets to choose whether to give you the best reward (by risking a milder punishment for themselves) or the worst punishment (by risking getting the same punishment themselves). Meanwhile, choosing to do the good thing means that either you get the mild punishment or the moderate reward, so no matter what the other person does you're better off than if you had fallen into A. And since A is such a deterrent, you can then feel SAFE doing the right thing because it's more likely that the other person will do the right thing too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top