Does the good guy always win? Or does evil never die?

[AoStar]

Which do you think is true?

[Kadaeux]

I haven't seen many people i'd actually call a good guy. And I see far too many people in power that definitely qualify as evil.




And if you look at my RPs the latter is true and the former very false

[KnightShade]

The good guy obviously doesn't always win in fiction. In reality it's hard to even define who is good and of course they don't always win. On the other hand the bad guy doesn't always win either. Both good and evil, if you believe in them, will not die as long as sentient life with even the most rudimentary morality continues to exist.

[Dervish]

"History is written by the victors." Morality is subjective, and in a lot of cases, what one culture or people things is right and wrong may entirely differ from another. However, good or bad is irrelevant for who is ultimately going to prevail. Sometimes a person or character we think of as good comes out on top. Other times, the villain. It all comes down to a million little factors like talent, skill, luck, timing, resources, intelligence, strategy, courage... Et cetera. Stories often end with good (usually the protaganist) winning in the end, no matter what challenges. It kind of skews things. However, look at video games and think of the quantum suicide theory. Let's say every time you die in a game, that becomes another reality and timeline existing alongside the one you experience. Let's say you die 50 times during a playthrough before winning. Ultimately, there are now 50 realities where evil or whatever triumphed because the hero had fallen and one where it is vanquished by the hero. You could argue that evil or whatever has the odds stacked in their favour, and sometimes good manages to break the trend. Ultimately, it comes down to how it's presented and how someone perceives morality. For all we know, we think Mario is the hero saving the Princess from a tyrant, when in reality it could be two separate kingdoms arranged a peace pact through arranged marriage and Mario is a revolutionary or rebel determined to prevent this peace at any cost and overthrow the established Koopa monarchy, therefore throwing the kingdom into war and a power struggle left in the vacuum of the leader's disposal, all because Mario is a love inflicted fool who cares not for the peace and security of the realm, but rather his own selfish, base urges. Food for thought.

[ActRaiser]

Morality is not subjective in my worldview, nevertheless, the Book of Job, says that some people face harshness and brutality on Earth, and then are rewarded for it. In Christianity, this view can mean good rewards and further bliss in Heaven. So, in short, Yes, in a longer explanation, no but, there is always something wonderful waiting for those who are "good".

[Dervish]

Goes into my point about one culture's perspective differing from another. You obviously follow a Christian mortality, and would find something like religious sacrifice like the Aztecs practiced amoral and wrong. However, to them they believed they had to do it each day to basically ensure the sun came up the next day to please their own gods. Not saying I agree with it, but I'm illustrating a point. Likewise, the Crusades. Who were the moral and just there, the Christians or the Muslims? Both sides believed they were the good guys, and their god was just and right. I'm certainly not trying to start a theological debate or even suggest one religion is more valid than another, but those are two examples that come to mind where morality can indeed be subjective.

[ActRaiser]

"Can" is a lot different from "Always" though. Morality is objective in my worldview, but it does allow for some shades of grey, rather than just black and white all over the place.

[Omega]

Define 'good' and 'evil' for the sake of this discussion.

[ActRaiser]

Careful Dervish, whenever someone asks to define good and evil, everything goes straight to Hell.

I meant Aoster. She's not here right now though.

[Dervish]

Haha, I'll keep that in mind, ActRaiser. But I'll take a stab at it, trying to keep as objectively neutral as I can. As I mentioned, how someone could define good and evil depends largely on their cultural upbringing and personal morality. Good, I would say, generally is acting to benefit others in a benevolent way, such as protecting the innocent, helping someone in need, and such. Evil would be the opposite where someone acts maliciously to further themselves or their ideals, putting everything else below them and willing to obtain their goals by any means necessary, even if it means throwing away lives pointlessly, making people suffer for your own gain, and so on. Or, plain and simple, being vile and cruel for no real purpose. People like serial killers, dictators, rapists, and so on I'd categorize as straight-up evil. As ActRaiser said, there's a lot of shades of grey. For instance, Alexander the Great could be seen as good or evil, depending on how you look at his world conquering business. On one hand, he tended to treat conquered enemies well and being a part of his empire wasn't genrally an oppressive affair. People could retain the cultures and generally govern their own personal affairs. On the other hand, you could say he was evil for forcing people under his rule through aggression and conquest. I'd put him in the grey area, it can go either way. But if you look at say Josef Stalin, he basically took control of the USSR, murdered millions of people and terrorized the rest. There really is nothing you can say to redeem the man, he's pretty much what I consider evil. On the good side, someone like Ghandi who put India above himself and promoted passive resistance for his country's independance instead of provoking a war. I don't think you'd find anyone who'd say he's anything but good. Hopefully this is a satisfactory, non-inflamatory answer.