Are the 10th Bad Guys?

[kolakoski]

Well met!

Earlier, Owlman states that, absent a belief in the Divine "anything goes," and any selfish act can be justified since there are no afterlife consequences. This ignores the concept of Enlightened Self Interest. That is, people are better off and happier when they act "morally," even without the threat of eternal damnation.

There is a description of the difference between Heaven and Hell where, in Hell, everyone is chained such that they cannot eat the food in front of them, and everyone goes hungry. In Heaven, the same conditions exist, but everyone feeds the person next to them, and no one starves.

It does not take a belief in "God," in whatever belief system, for one to feel outrage at injustice, love for a son, or pity for those less fortunate.

[Evar-Scarcarver]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Well met!

Earlier, Owlman states that, absent a belief in the Divine "anything goes," and any selfish act can be justified since there are no afterlife consequences. This ignores the concept of Enlightened Self Interest. That is, people are better off and happier when they act "morally," even without the threat of eternal damnation.

There is a description of the difference between Heaven and Hell where, in Hell, everyone is chained such that they cannot eat the food in front of them, and everyone goes hungry. In Heaven, the same conditions exist, but everyone feeds the person next to them, and no one starves.

It does not take a belief in "God," in whatever belief system, for one to feel outrage at injustice, love for a son, or pity for those less fortunate.

Owlman actually just said it could be argued from an atheist standpoint. He didn't state it as fact.

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Owlman

Actually, this topic is more for "General", rather than "Heroscape General Discussion", wouldn't you think?

Moving on, what is your definition of a Christian, if I may ask? Because I can tell you right now, there's no such thing as "grey area's" when it comes to God's laws.

I wasn't talking about God's Laws, I was talking about people in general. And this thread is about the people, moreso, than the Laws.

[Ace Histoli]

Dare I weigh in?

I am an atheist and I firmly believe in right and wrong without having to believe in any god or gods. I'm a father, too, and I very much want my children to grow up with a sense of right and wrong. And I'm very confident that the process of teaching them morality will not be helped by any religious teachings. At least in our house.


And, um, more importantly, I love Heroscape and I love the fact that we can share our love of Heroscape here.

[Arrow Grut]

Haven't read the entire thread (about to page two) but here is how it goes in my mind:

Did the Romans oppress, kill and enslave many "barbarian states"?


Did the all of America harbor slaves for over 150 years, before and after its creation? Did Confederates shed blood to continue this horrific tradition?

Did America lead a horrific march through middle America in which thousands of native Americans died and all others were relocated out of their tribal homes for hundreds if not thousands of years?

Does China downplay and oppress Taiwan because of its religious significance?

Did Nazis not commit a massive atrocity?

Did Russia not slaughter hundreds if not thousands of Polish officers days after their "liberation" of Warsaw from the Nazis?

Did the Catholics not burn Monteseguer, full of Cathar (yes the spearmen in this game) men, women and children and other Catholics?

Did Britain not oppress and sometimes open fire upon their colonies in India?

Every country, every religion, every region, every skin color, every time period, every socioeconomic group, every continent have had their darkest hour, have committed a horrible, unthinkable atrocity. America, Britian, Russia, China, ancient civilizations such as the Roman Empire. If we were to place any army of anytime period under a general, with regards to their moral principles, they will all perhaps be Vydarian. Honestly, I believe that the placement of human units in each specific army has more to do with their style of combat, not necessarily their moral compass, as every single army and era in the game has committed a horrific act at one time (I'm drawing a blank about samurai and Westons, but I'm sure there are examples, I'm not so historically versed). 10th are a very very disciplined fighting force. They are imperial, they are strong, they follow strong leadership. Romans are the same. Samurai follow strong principles and live for their dynamo and for their honor and families. Knights are brave, and noble (or at least as they are portrayed in fable). The American fight against Britian in our revolution was very valiant, as we had all of the odds stacked against us, until France entered the conflict, at least. Tarns, well, they are brave I guess and the Champs work well with Knights.

The placement of the 10th in Einar had nothing to do with their morality or anything similar. The British Empire at the time was massive, a behemoth and the British footsoldier were the most renowned in the world, perhaps the most disciplined and most effective because of that unparalleled discipline. Only fitting they fall under the general of military discipline, along side the Romans and Greeks.

[TheAverageFan]

Wow this is an interesting thread! Too bad I was late to it.

I think the guys over at Hasbro were very wise to place the 10th into Einar's ranks, because he does represent more of a gray-area as far as Heroscape Generals go. They did fight the Americans, but I don't think they were bad guys, per se. At least, not in the same light as the Nazis (I think most could agree to placing the SS into Utgar). Similar to the Romans and the Samurai, they're a bit more difficult to decipher than plain old Jandar or Utgar. Einar was an evil General at the start of the game, I believe. But he's good now, so he's a little more flip-floppity like Vydar. Heck, how truly good are you when one of your soldier's abilities is literally called "Evil Eye Defense"?

If Confederate soldiers were introduced, I imagine they'd also be Einar for more or less the same reasons. They were pretty loyal and hardy, and if I'm not mistaken they were seeking an alliance with the British, so they'd fit right in with the 10th I guess.

Or you could just make them Vydar 'cause they wear gray. :/

~TAF

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

I wasn't talking about God's Laws, I was talking about people in general. And this thread is about the people, moreso, than the Laws.

You didn't answer my question. People must obey the laws and respect them, yes? So actually this thread has to do with both.

I asked for you to define what being a Christian means to you. For me, if a person violates ANY of God's laws (whether it be a hateful thought, or a cold blooded murder) that makes one Evil, or "Black", shall we say.

The scriptures are very clear about that. You say there is good in everyone, but I do not believe that. Rather, one sin (no matter how "little" or "big"), from God's perspective, = eternal separation from Him. So there is no room for "gray" area's in God's economy.

For example, let's say that a scientist develops a cure for a deadly disease. Another man has a daughter who is dying of it. The man contacts the scientist, who demands to be paid 5 million dollars for the cure. The man is distraught. He does not have the money to pay for his daughters cure, and her time is running out. So, in desperation, he decides to steal the cure. After all, the scientist can make more, right? The world would say it's a moral gray area. That stealing to save someone's life is a greater good. So the man successfully steals the cure, and his daughter is healed. The end.

So in this story, I ask you, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? The answer (from God's standpoint): Both are the bad guys here. There is no moral gray area. The scientist was the bad guy for not loving his neighbor as himself, and the man was the bad guy for stealing. No fingers ought to be pointed, because in the end, Both are in need of Jesus' saving grace.

See? God's standard is absolute perfection, and nothing less. That is why I thank God for the sacrifice of Jesus everyday, because without Him, I know I would be eternally doomed.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Owlman

For example, let's say that a scientist develops a cure for a deadly disease. Another man has a daughter who is dying of it. The man contacts the scientist, who demands to be paid 5 million dollars for the cure. The man is distraught. He does not have the money to pay for his daughters cure, and her time is running out. So, in desperation, he decides to steal the cure. After all, the scientist can make more, right? The world would say it's a moral gray area. That stealing to save someone's life is a greater good. So the man successfully steals the cure, and his daughter is healed. The end.

So in this story, I ask you, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? The answer (from God's standpoint): Both are the bad guys here. There is no moral gray area. The scientist was the bad guy for not loving his neighbor as himself, and the man was the bad guy for stealing. No fingers ought to be pointed, because in the end, Both are in need of Jesus' saving grace.

See? God's standard is absolute perfection, and nothing less. That is why I thank God for the sacrifice of Jesus everyday, because without Him, I know I would be eternally doomed.

This is the best example of "Turn the other cheek" and why an "eye for an eye" is wrong that I have read.

As of the discussion of the moral compass of historical people and how they are portrayed in heroscape, I love that we are having this discussion. Knowing where we came from and the underlying assuptions and beliefs can help us understand where we are.

Will I let my child play with Civil war figures. Sure. Will I tell them that slavery is bad, and just because Stone Wall Jackson was one kick ass general, doesn't make slavery good. Definitally. As a secularist will I still teach the leasons of Jesus (and owlman's above). Yes! Good teaching are good teachings.

Still don't like refering to Evil as "Black", and think that the next time I play chess, black will go first.

[IAmBatman]

The ideas that there's good in everyone and that everyone is a sinner aren't mutually exclusive, IMO. As a Christian, I definitely believe we're all fallen and sinners, but we're also all creations of God. So we absolutely have good in us and were made for good purpose. The failings of our actions from free will do not abolish this, but they do separate us from God as you mentioned above. And, as you mentioned above, we are redeemed through Christ. We absolutely all have good in us, though! Especially upon being cleansed by Christ's sacrifice.

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Owlman

For me, if a person violates ANY of God's laws (whether it be a hateful thought, or a cold blooded murder) that makes one Evil, or "Black", shall we say.

So is there even one person in the world who is not evil?
If not then what meaning does that label hold?
It is the same as calling someone a sinner when everyone is a sinner.
"You are a human."
"I know you are but what am I?"

[quozl]

The label is still useful in describing actions.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Tornado

So is there even one person in the world who is not evil?
If not then what meaning does that label hold?
It is the same as calling someone a sinner when everyone is a sinner.
"You are a human."
"I know you are but what am I?"

Not to put words in Owlmans mouth, but you are engageing in a religious debate which this may not be the place for. Owlman is very clear on the rules of his engagement, in his Ontology, God exists and only Jesus (and maybe Adam and Eve prior to eating the apple) are without sin. Those are the rules of that discussion.

Now within those rules you can be an active sinner, a non repentant sinner, or a passive sinner. In catholisim you could go to confession and rid yourself of sin, you could lead a good life and never choose to enact sin, but you always have the potential.

It is like we all lie, but some lies are bigger or malicious than others. Some people actively lie and other passively. Some do it for 'evil' reasons while others do it for 'good' reasons. Some Lie lots other lie little. The lable liar still has meaning even though everyone lies.