"Are There Bad Guys?" Topic

Asking in general, but feel free to qualify your answer by genre if you feel that is significant.

1. Evil abounds!
2. There are good guys and bad guys in every conflict
3. There are good guys and bad guys in some conflicts
4. All sides have good guys and bad guys, but in great majority proportions
5. All sides have good guys and bad guys
6. No such thing as bad guys
7. …

I got a four!

"Not all the orcs were on one side"--J.R.R. Tolkien.

There are definitley bad guys. The German army in WWII were bad guys.

The Soviets were bad guys too at that time.

Bad guys sometimes fight each other.

Tolkien wrote something in a letter to one of his sons saying that there were High men on the Axis side--"but not the Highest." That seems to me about right. You can't reasonably expect to raise an army without enlisting at least a few people who simply want an opportunity to kill and loot, and decent men may join a cause I find hideously evil--or at least serve in an army which supports such a cause.

But the proportions of such men vary greatly army to army, and not all causes are of equal merit.

Fortunately as a wargamer, I'm concerned with tactics, not ethics.

If you consider a side en masse, then 3. But if you consider sides as individuals, then 5.

According to Emperor Palpatine, good is a point of view. Anakin believed him, so it must be true.

Without bad guys who are the good guys going to triumph over?

I would hope that for every William Calley there
are many George C. Marshalls…

As individuals, there are good guys and bad guys everywhere, in every organization, in every nation. It's Yin and Yang.

As a nation, a collective, each side in most cases will think they are the "good" guys. It is the winners of the war, who will ultimately write the history books and judge who the good guys were.

I'm went to school in the USA, so I was always taught our side were the "good" guys. I would guess that those educated in the UK would have a different perspective on the American War of Independence. And Mexicans would have a different perspective of the American-Mexican War, etc.

Usually both sides have good guys and bad guys. It's usually the politicians that determine a course of action that can be considered bad.

Case in point my wife's grandfather was a drafted into the Wehrmacht in 1940 as a cook. Was killed in 1942 on the Russian front, married two little girls. Was he a bad man? No, but Hitler was.

It's usually the politicians that determine a course of action that can be considered bad.

Well I've been told that there are definitely bad hombres…

John T

@Hafen: "Not all the orcs were on one side"--J.R.R. Tolkien.

Does that mean they were in different evil factions? Or does that mean that some were actually fighting for good?

Dan

In general, if you would not like your actions applied to your own people, odds are you are probably not on sound moral ground.

CC--Ah. He was actually speaking of the world wars in the real world.

Or should I say the "real" world?

Gollum was both good and bad. The question is, was Boromir a "Bad Guy"? He did repent before he died, but was that enough?

This begs the age old question…

YouTube link

Lol.

Or even like the Antifa thugs always using violence against non-violent people they disagree with, but which they have labeled "fascists" to justify their behavior. :)

I though the "bad guys wear black hats" was all a big lie, until the last decade or two.

Dan

Human nature hasn't changed much in thousands of years, so "good" and "bad" will largely depend on your tribal affiliations and position in the hierarchy of wealth and power.

Thus spake the social scientist.

And the historiography guy agrees with you.

Also "good guys" & "bad guys" depends on your frame of reference. Having said that I would say in every army there are both honorable & despicable men.

Occasionally, good and bad also depends on who carries out an industrial level genocide.

To name a completely random example.

There is good and bad in all.

As a Vietnam example, My Lai vs. Hue massacres. One took place over a few hours with over 100 killed. The other took place over a few weeks with between 700 to 6000 killed.

Both denied it happened at first.

Later, one side investigated and trials were held the other side justified their actions.

Good guy know when a wrong was done in their name.

Thanks, VCarter. I had honestly never even heard about the Hue Massacre (even after reading books about the battle). Yet My Lai is talked about everywhere. It just goes to show you how Stalin's old axiom about the death of one man really is true and how the press (or lack thereof) really does guide (or misguide) world opinion.

Interesting question.

I think it might have to be conditional on genre and maybe even the size of game.

Space exploration sand box games or certain Pulp adventure games for example could bring all types of natural dangers that wouldn't necessarily represent moral evil (physical evil in terms of Christian philosophy perhaps).

Scooby Doo games have lack of food as the only real evil.

I also think the size of the engagement matters. A large scale encounter brings with it a conflict between two ideologies. In my opinion for war to exist at least one party (possibly both) needs to be unjust in their actions.

Skirmish could be viewed differently though.

Where there's a small group of individuals their motivations could be viewed separately from the moral persuasion of the collective group they normally represent (and I don't mean individualistic moral relativism) I mean their moral stance due to perhaps the present circumstance can be seen differently from the principles and ideologies of their group. (Finn in the beginning of the The Force Awakens. The British in Zulu (occupying invader placed in a survival scenario)…etc etc…Cross of Iron Movie (Maybe)(1977)

This actually came up recently in a thread about the Irish War of Independence. IRA vs the Black and Tans. As an Irishman there's only one bad guy right? Well a certain scenario could place a group of RIC made up of newly arrived decent British chaps suckered into a brutal theatre of war by better pay and pension are suddenly thrown into a vicious firefight with an IRA ambush. Can both sides not have a just motivation in the circumstances? In skirmish I'd say so. Larger conflict I'd have to involve the larger scheme of things etc…

So no easy answer straight forward answer form me unless separating for genres and size of conflict etc…

Probably 1. Evil abounds!

There's very little purity in war. The new Mel Gibson Hacksaw Ridge or Stg York expresses a virtuous approach by a single man but I've no idea how true those depictions are and I certainly know they're not a norm

I'd have to go with 3. When I'm playing, my side is always the good guys.

It's pretty hard to motivate troops by telling them that they are something other than the good guys.

When I run a game, I write orders for both sides. I write both sets of orders in character as much as possible.

So, in my games, there are definitely bad guys and good guys -- two sets of each.

It's pretty hard to motivate troops by telling them that they are something other than the good guys.

YouTube link

Thanks Panda, my thoughts exactly.

Yes, let's condense 3000 years of philosophy dealing with this question in a TMP thread.

Up next: "What's the meaning of life? And does it depend on your preferred figure scale?"

@War Panda: Thanks. That was perfect.

@Phil Dutre: Excellent questions. I'm going with "42" and "no" for answers.

War Panda – Very Funny!

Phil Dutre – "42" and "No".

@War Panda – That video is still as funny as when TGerritsen posted his link to it ;-)

@War Panda – That video is still as funny as when TGerritsen posted his link to it ;-)

Oh Gosh…I didn't realize it was already here :D That's kindof funny in it's own right Sorry TGerritsen :)

I thought the video aged nicely between postings, actually.

I thought the video aged nicely between postings, actually.

Lol…comedy is all about timing 😀

… timing …

Perfect

War is the suspension of civilization. The cause may be just, but the means is always terrible.