EnderofWorlds said:
Alright; let's do a little thought experiment. Three characters with the Chaotic Alignment are all in the same situation as Shinji; with Bloodfort Andromeda and Rider needing prana. They cannot provide it, and the only means of providing it is through the Bloodfort; which will kill hundreds. What does each alignment do?
My answer: They all go through with it; the Chaotic Good character understands that without Rider he cannot win the War, which means that someone evil may obtain it and use it to bring ruin to the world. It is a sacrifice that weighs heavy on his mind, but for the sake of the greater good; one might have to commit a lesser evil.
The Chaotic Evil character does it so that he may both maintain Rider, and so that he can watch the victims suffer; he seeks the Grail to grant his desires, which are fueled by his urge to watch the world burn. He lives for evil and chaos, and having hundreds die so that his goals may continue is a bonus.
The Chaotic Neutral character does it because he needs to maintain Rider, and he wants the grail. Unlike his Good counterpart, he does not regret the casualties, and unlike his Evil counterpart he does not enjoy it either. It is simply a cost he must pay to reach his 'goal', if one can call it that. This is where I feel Shinji falls into the best. He isn't like a villain who will do evil deeds to reach their goal, nor is he doing wrong deeds for a reason he believes is right. He has no greater motivation besides 'what I want'. An evil character, even Neutral Evil; will do something for a larger, overarching goal. This is what Shinji lacks; a greater goal to both justify or validate his actions besides 'because I want to'. Without one, he is merely neutral.
I refuse to budge on this; as of now Shinji Matou's alignment is Chaotic Neutral in this quest.
Edit: While I'm not going to change his alignment; I'm still willing to hear out your opinion, so at the very least it'll be heard. And so I may possibly incorporate elements of it into further characterization.
Sorry, that is just plain not true. Evil is defined by the willingness to harm others without regret, not by having some evil goal to aim for (by that definition even
Zouken wouldn't be evil). There are
plenty of Evil characters that don't have an "overarching goal" aside from just doing whatever benefits them (again, Zouken counts).
Your definition of evil makes it a completely meaningless concept, because it ignores clearly evil acts. Further, it bears no relation to the
actual D&D definition of evil. http://easydamus.com/neutralevil.html, for example. It clearly states that all being Evil implies is that you do not care about who you hurt and act in your own interests. It says nothing about having an over-riding goal, although that is not excluded.
I can't force you to change your alignment, but it is clearly and obviously wrong. A cursory look at anything explaining the D&D alignment system in any detail demonstrates that.
The problem is that you are defining "evil" as "enjoyment of suffering", which is untrue in
both directions. Rider, for example, enjoys suffering, but she doesn't go out to harm people so she's not evil. Enjoyment of suffering is
sadism, and sadism is neither evil nor a requirement for you to
be evil. Many of the worst villains are just emotionless monsters who don't
care about what suffering they cause, and by your definition they would not be evil.
If your definition is actually true then the alignment test is
actually useless, because it excludes a large chunk of people who are clearly evil but don't come up as such. For example, someone who murders people for profit is not evil by your definition because they don't gain pleasure from it. And nor is basically every dictator ever, unless they're actually killing people for the fun of killing and not to retain power.
useless101 said:
I imagine the disagreement over alignment stems from the differing definitions of evil.
"Evil is a good man doing nothing," or "to be immoral is to be evil." Both of these express an idea of what it means to be evil, and do so in an understandable way.
But that is not the definition of evil that the Nasu-verse runs on, nor is it how D&D defines it. To be identified as evil by a dungeons and dragons spell or ability, you have to be the type that seeks destruction for the sake of it, or who would cause suffering purely to enjoy the pain of others.
Doing 'bad things' to make yourself feel less wretched would qualify as evil under the first one, but not under the second. Since the alignment spell uses the second definition, it comes back as neutral.
This doesn't mean you can't say Shinji is a bastard who needs to die, it just means that this spell and system won't tell you so straight out.
Edit: I put the word evil before bastard in that last line. It undermined my point and probably added a lot of confusion.
Erm, what? Since when does the D&D definition of Evil imply you have to cause suffering for the sake of suffering? That is
Chaotic Evil, yes, but not Evil in general.
For example, someone like Xykon from Order of the Stick (that's the best reference I can find, sorry) doesn't perform evil acts for the sake of performing evil acts (at least not mostly), and nor does Elan's father. They do it because it benefits
them.
Your definition of evil has no relationship to what is
actually evil. Being sadistic does not make you evil, even if you act on that, what makes you evil is the lack of care or compassion for anyone else.
Also, what Shinji does counts as evil under
both definitions. Raping someone or mass-murder is not merely an absense of good, it is in itself an immoral act by any definition of moral. He didn't
have to abuse Sakura, he didn't do it to save his life, he did it because he
wanted to. Draining the school is a bit more dubious, but even then it's not like he
had to fight.
Pipeman said:
It's kind of annoying when people don't actually read the stuff they're quoting.
DnD alignment is not a good way to determine morality.
It's a game mechanic.
I even said that Shinji probably deserves to die in my post.
I am not defending Shinji.
I am saying that the DnD definition of the word Evil in relation to the alignment mechanic does not apply to him.
The problem with that is that you're
wrong. D&D explicitly defines the willingness to harm others without reservation for your own benefit evil, not neutral. Neutral means you won't actively harm people unless you have good reason, but also won't generally go out of your way to
help people. You know, like most
real people. People do often use Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to play evil characters when they're banned from doing so by the GM, but that is
not what it means in the original definition.
Look.
She has been raped by worms for ten years.
You can't just snap your fingers and make her problems go away.
That sort of thing requires serious effort over many years and won't just disappear even then.
And you know what's a horrible time to attempt to undo severe mental trauma?
Right in a fucking Grail War.
And the HF route maid it very clear that Sakura only flipped out that much because she suddenly had something to cling to.
Sakura doesn't become more stable by dealing with her issues.
She becomes worse until they are properly addressed and dealt with.
And, as the HF also showed, attempting it during the Grail War ups the body count dramatically.
Right now she's in a stable equilibrium.
She'll just have to soldier through for a couple of weeks more.
All of which can be dealt with, once there aren't any demigods trying to kill us, Gods of Evil trying to destroy the world and Sakura can no longer become said God of Evil's meatpuppet.
No, we can't just "snap our fingers" and make it go away, but that does
not mean she will become more unstable. Without Angra Mainyu taking control of her she is
not going to snap, she is just too damn strong for that.
Further, it won't get dealt with a a couple of weeks, because no-one will even
know about it. And that is assuming Kotomine actually does deal with Zouken, which is not at all clear.
Pipeman said:
Well that and alignments usually contain more than one character archetype.
Yes, but the way he's defining it it actually
doesn't. He's defining it such that it only includes sadists....
