It's five on the default settings...

If the villain believes he's fighting for something that's right, then he's not evil.

 

I hate to trot out the tired, old example, but Hitler was doing what he thought was right...

 

You can fight for what you believe and still be an evil bastard.

I don't call Hitler evil. He's definately a bad dude, no arguement. I'd call him bad, wrong, sadistic, ect.

 

I reserve 'evil' for people like the Zodiac killer who know what they're doing is wrong, and enjoy it purely for that reason.

Well there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that Hitler and the Nazis were evil by your definition.

Hitler never signed any order to begin the "Final Solution" and he never said "yeah, I'm sending Jews to death camps." He always said "I'm taking care of the Jewish question."

Furthermore Gerbils, Hitler's propaganda minister, once told the SS elite guard, when referring to the Holocaust, "we are about to write a glorious chapter in German history, one we can never tell anyone else."

Gerbils is also on record saying "we will either be judged as mankind's saviours or mankind's greatest villains."

 

All of that tells me that Hitler and the Nazis new what they were doing was wrong, on a basic level at least. Yet they did it anyway. Even if Hitler honestly did what he thought was "good" that doesn't make him any less evil. How else can you describe sending six million people to their deaths just because of their religion?

 

Yes, Hitler and the Nazis are extreme examples, but IMO they prove that mankind is in fact capable of true evil.

 

Back to TFers....

 

ITS is right. I know that the G1 cartoon was very simple. The characters never evolved past the point of good or evil. That doesn't mean we're not allowed to look for more complex characters though, through modern day mediums. We have both the Dreamwave and iDW comics that basically retell G1 from a more "adult" story telling perspective.

And to bring it full circle we come back with Nazis....

 

I think, in most cases, adding a motivation to a villain takes them out of the 'evil' column. Why were Megatron's actions in Origin evil? He was a miner oppressed by a corrupt senate, and he overthrew it violently.

True, Megatron's actions were directed by the situation he was in. He was still evil though.

The Nazis are prime examples of this. They rose to power, and their ideology was created, by the situation they were put in. Much like Megs and the 'Cons, Hitler and the Nazis were the result of their surroundings.

The German economy had hit rock bottom, people were desperate, and the Nazis were able to develop by playing off the desperations of the German people. They were very much a product of their surroundings.

 

They saw a desperate and unjust situation, and acted in a way that they felt was the best way to deal with the situation. Does that make their actions less evil? No, it just means they choose an evil situation to an evil problem. The same can be said for Megs and the 'Cons.

 

Both DW and iDW have added a layer of depth to the 'Cons that I find refreshing. They believe they're freedom fighters, they believe they're right. Does that mean that they're not evil? No. Everyone's a hero in their own story. Evil people still exist though, even if they think they're right.

There's a difference between "Committing evil because you enjoy it" and "Committing evil because you believe you are working in the best interests of your people". The first example is sadism, the second is either delusion or desperation, depending on the situation.

I've said it before and I'm sayin' it again - 'good' and 'evil' are subjective and thus their definitions greatly fall under your own personal opinion.

 

One person's villain is another's hero. I can guarantee you that every terrorist is a hero in someone else's eye. American rebels were classified as terrorists by the British government but seen as heroes of independence to many Americans. The Resistance were considered terrorists by the occupying Nazi administration but heroes to many people in Nazi-occupied France. Many of us would consider Osama Bin-Laden to be an evil villain but to many other people he's a freedom fighter. And you can't go up to these people and tell them that they're wrong just because Bin Laden doesn't fit your personal definition of good.

 

Referring to Osama Bin Laden as good or evil really based on subjective opinions. The fact is that Bin Laden is either amoral or immoral as his actions demonstrate that he believes that the ends justify the means, no matter what and he is willing to sacrifice innocent lives to achieve those ends. His public broadcasts suggest that he is amoral.

 

Icecap79's description of the Nazis make them sound immoral. They know what they were doing was wrong, yet they did it anyway. Al Qaeda/the Taliban on the other hand, from all the broadcasts that they've released, claim that they believe that what they are doing is a just and noble cause, which makes them more amoral.

 

But even moral people can commit acts that are widely considered evil. Look at the Stolen Generations. The government at the time, and a lot of people who were executing policies where they were forcibly removing babies and children from Aboriginal parents (effectively stealing because they were never returned) and placing them into concentration-camp-like convent schools were doing so because they thought that what they were doing was for the best. They thought that the Aborigines were "uncivilised savages" compared to white people and part of Australian culture at the time was the idea of "the white man's burden" in their 'responsibility' to civilise coloured people for their own good - and idea which was the basis of the White Australia Policy (abolished in the 1960s - in the 1970s the Whitlam government implemented policies for greater racial equality and inclusion).

 

If you already haven't, watch Rabbit-Proof Fence - based on a true story about some girls who escaped and walked 2400km in an attempt to find their mother.

 

 

Today society largely condemns what the government did and on May 26 each year, many Australians commemorate National Sorry Day, recognising that what the government at the time did, and what society tolerated and accepted, was wrong. We remove children from parents who are abusive or negligent... but to remove children from their parents just because they're "coloured"? That's wrong and in the opinion of many people (particularly the victims) it's evil.

I've said it before and I'm sayin' it again - 'good' and 'evil' are subjective and thus their definitions greatly fall under your own personal opinion.

I'm sorry but to consider 'good' and 'evil' as 100% subjective, leads to a very messed-up sense of morality, if not outright amorality. Some things are bad no matter how some one tries to justify them.

I told you to stop doing drugs.

 

Some things are bad no matter how some one tries to justify them.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's 'good' or 'evil.'

 

For example, if "Bob" is walking through a park and a stranger came along and attempts to abduct a child. Bob, in an attempt to defend said child, assaults the would-be abductor causing serious injury. Is what Bob did good or evil? On one hand you could argue that it's good because Bob was protecting the child. On the other hand you could argue that it's bad because Bob had violently assaulted another person (can two wrongs make a right?).

 

Now in this case we can say that Bob was definitely acting morally as he was doing what he felt was the right thing to do - in this case, seeing someone attempting to abduct a child, he felt that the child was in danger and thought the best thing to do was to beat the crap out of the kidnapper. So yes, Bob was acting morally. Was Bob being good or evil? That depends on your opinion.

 

Let's look at how the law works. The law (Australian law anyway) allows you to use equal or lesser force in defence - you cannot use excessive force. Let's say that all the abductor did was grab the child but was otherwise not hurting her. Bob can legally use an appropriate amount of force to elicit the kidnapper to desist, such as shoving him away or hitting him until he lets go. Once he has let go of the child, Bob is no longer legally allowed to continue hitting the kidnapper. If he does, then Bob would then be committing assault and not defence (because once the kidnapper is no longer attempting to kidnap the child or fight back against Bob, what is Bob defending against?). So if Bob uses an appropriate level of force, then legally he can be acquitted. If he uses an excessive amount of force, and particularly if he continues to assault the kidnapper after diffusing the situation and the kidnapper was not attempting to fight back, then Bob would be charged with assault.

 

Even if Bob used excessive force and continued pummeling the crap out of the kidnapper, sure, that would make him guilty as sin when it comes to the charge of assault. But does it make him amoral or immoral? I don't think so. Most moral people would feel outraged if someone tried to abduct a child.

 

As I said before, notice how the law never uses the words "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" are facts, and not opinions, then why aren't they used in areas that deal with facts, such as the law and science? When was the last time you ever saw the word "good" or "evil" used in a legal or scientific definition?

 

"The Australopithicus was a rather evil creature..."

"This jury finds the defendant good!"

 

I d o n ' t t h i n k s o

 

If you were accused of mass Transufomah!, murder and mass destruction, the court would either find you guilty or innocent -- not good or evil.

Seriously, that scares me. I cannot believe there are people out there who think Decepticons aren't evil. I mean, it's like "WTF?" Hasbro's made it clear from Day 1 they're evil. It distubs me that people are actually trying to find a "Deeper" meaning to Transformers. I mean, some of the people I've encountered who try to debate this non-debatable point are trying to say "Oh, well in a real war, you're just representing your country, and you do what you have to do, there is no clearcut good and evil. The Decepticons not being evil gives it a sense of realism!"

 

Now that scares me, since people are trying to look for realism in a comic and cartoon about giant Transforming robots. That's like trying to find a television in an Amish community. Also, it's pretty obvious that Decepticons are a faction, not a "Country" or whatever. So this leads me to believe that the whole "Decepticons arent' evil" thing comes from 3 things:

 

1. People reading far too deep into something which ISN'T that deep or meaningful.

2. People looking for "Realism".

3. Insanity.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

I agree with you 100% This is why i dont understand why people want deep and long and involved plot lines for a TF movie, there simply isnt room for that stuff. Transformers is at best a no brainer, action packed form of entertainment about big robots blowing stuff up. Its never meant to be a deep, philosophical, thought provoking, enlightening, eye opening oscar winning series of literature or filmed or animated entertainment.

 

You know what i think it is? Number 1 + a bit of 3 + people with no lives that have nothing better to do but try to find a deep and meaningful meaning to something that serves no purpose other than to entertain.

This thread was stupid before Godwin's Law happened. Now it's just head slapping bad.

I agree with you 100% This is why i dont understand why people want deep and long and involved plot lines for a TF movie, there simply isnt room for that stuff.

I agree with that. And it also goes beyond the scope of what Dreamworks/Hasbro were intending to achieve with a Transformers movie. Some people are like, "this movie is like a cartoon" - and yeah, it is... but hello?! It's Transformers. But having said that...

 

Transformers is at best a no brainer, action packed form of entertainment about big robots blowing stuff up. Its never meant to be a deep, philosophical, thought provoking, enlightening, eye opening oscar winning series of literature or filmed or animated entertainment.

I disagree with that statement. The Transformers G1 comics - which came out before the cartoon aired in most places and lasted long after the G1 cartoon was axed - did have a higher order level of complexity in the story. Generally speaking the cartoon was aimed at a lower level - and thus had a lower level of appeal and lower level of success as demonstrated by the fact that it only ran for 2 years (1985-87) whereas the G1 comics ran for 8 years (1984-1992). The cartoon, despite attempts from writers, failed to grow up with fans - whereas the G1 comic fared better and thus lasted longer.

 

The G1 comic was axed largely because by 1991 interest in the Transformers franchise in general had severely dwindled (allowing the Action Masters to dominate the toy line really didn't help) and as a result the comics were cancelled... it wasn't because the stories were getting crappier, in fact, I would say that the G1 comics was at it's peak when it was axed. The tail end G1 stories were just awesome before they axed it... okay, the last few issues were rushed but that was because Furman was desperately trying to quickly wrap up the expansive story before US#80.

 

And the G2 comics, Beast Wars cartoon (which won an Emmy) and Beast Machines definitely did engage audiences at a higher level. In fact, Beast Machines engaged audiences at too high a level and kinda forgot that a Transformers cartoon needs to be able to engage children in order to successfully market a toy line! Michael Bay isn't Transfandom's piñata, it's Bob Skir (not saying that he deserved it, but he did cop way more sh!t from fans than Michael Bay - and unlike Bay who was largely forgiven after the movie came out, Skir has generally never received the same level of kindness from fans - both got death threats from idiotic fanboys).

 

And you know what, people argue about this because they care about Transformers. Some people are really bad at arguing about it (mostly because they seem to have difficulty seeing things from a more objective POV - but that doesn't happen only in forum discussions, a lot of toy reviewers (and US journalists :P) suffer from the same problem). As much as I sometimes heap crap on some users (*smiles at Aquarion*), I know that they genuinely care about Transformers and want to discuss things about Transformers that they care about... they're just really not that good at it. ;) (although for some of them, their weaknesses in discussion go well beyond just a lack of objectivity :P)

...and if anyone thinks that arguing over Transformers morality and ethics is the height of stupidity, take a look at THIS site that someone just showed me!!

 

http://fixedearth.com/

 

...I dare say that nobody here could possibly be that stupid. (I certainly hope not)