It's a matter of philosophy. Necessity is divorced from morality in the heat of the moment, but that doesn't mean the act of trapping people inside their own bodies, forcing them to fight against what is effectively a god, is a good or even neutral act. The ends may justify the means, but they don't make them any less palatable.

 

I only agree with this statement when you read it without context. Trapping someone inside their own body and making them watch you suicide them against a god is a shitty thing to do. But with the context being that they are fucked anyway and this actually increases their chances of survival? I just can't see it as evil.

That said I don't think I could bring myself to do it if I had the power to do so, I will concede that.

Thanks for summarising the opposite view so nicely though.

 

I'd call it more of a necessary evil than simply a good act. Yes, it increases the chance of survival (assuming she doesn't sacrifice him), they stood no chance divided, the entire human race was on the line. Those are all true, but they're also the only reason Taylor isn't the Big Bad.

That doesn't change that the act of hijacking another person's body and using it as a tool is one of the most terrible things you could do to someone. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream terrible. Extenuating circumstances make it justified in this case, but that doesn't change the nature of the act.

As a side note, would it surprise you to know that there were no (as far as I'm aware) named Master-class Capes in the Protectorate before Taylor? Every single Master from the very start of the story has been a Rogue or outright villain, with the majority tending towards villainy.

EDIT: For a more in depth look at this kind of problem, check out the Trolley Problem. It's the same principle, though with differing circumstances.

 

Ursa Aurora? Pretender?

 

I've been thinking about it and what Taylor did to fight Scion actually kind of reminds me of Armsmaster in the fight against Leviathan, though on a much larger scale. Of course, Armsmaster didn't literally take control of anyone but he did sacrifice a bunch of people by taking any choice from them so that he could fight Leviathan. What he did was actually worse in some aspects, as a large part of it was him wanting respect and fame while Taylor was doing it for nobler reasons.

Of course, that's yet another symbol of Taylor becoming everything she hated (remember how much she despised Armsmaster for a while afterwards?) but what interests me more is the fact that Armsmaster got a second chance and he was pretty well accepted and admired after becoming Defiant. It makes me feel like killing Taylor was less out of a sense of justice and more due to the fact that they were terrified of her. So yeah, whether what Taylor did was right or wrong I'd say she deserved better.

Actually though - I'm still somewhat unclear - did anyone know Contessa had Taylor? Or did Contessa just decide to be judge, jury and executioner for her? She's kind of a massive bitch if she just took it upon herself to do that. I wonder if Taylor was put on some sort of trial or something if she'd be given the second chance that Defiant was.

 

From what I read it seems that Contessa acted alone, but gave Taylor the benefit of the doubt and used her power to draw conclusions, whatever those conclusions actually were...

 

Completely forgot about Ursa Aurora. Pretender is a bit of a weird case though, since he's been Protectorate, Rogue and Cauldron all in the space of one arc.

Still, there's a definite tendency for Masters to become villains.

 

I do not think this is the same thing at all. It's more like, there is a giant trolley going to run over every human on every world and Taylor used a few hundred people (give or take) to derail the trolley and save humanity.

I think you are not putting enough importance on the circumstances which are rather big. Yeah, in most other scenarios, this sort of action would be undeniably evil, taking away peoples choices, using them like insects and so on but here, they were going to die anyway, alongside everyone else.

Intent may not matter as much as the actions themselves, but fact is, that through this, Taylor saved humanity, which is kind of a big thing.

I mean, this isn't some excuse or a technicality.

As to the Armsmaster thing, no, it is also not the same. Armsmaster did what he did not to increase the chances of killing the Endbringer for the sake of saving lives but to get the honour of killing it and the rep and rise in career that would follow. That was a selfish and incredibly short-sighted action because, even if it had worked and killed the Endbringer, and if word had gotten out, a lot of villains might not have shown up to fight the next one, leading to ultimately more loss of human life.

Taylor did what she did because she had to, there was no real other choice. Armsmaster had a lot more options and he chose that one because that would have brought him and him alone the most glory.

 

I do agree, and said as much in my post (that Taylor had nobler intentions than Armsmaster) but I think you're being perhaps a little unfair. I believe Armsmaster did on some level think he was doing the right thing, that his weapon (I forgot what it was called) had the best chance of actually doing real damage and that sacrificing a few capes was more than worth it.

You're right though in that Armsmaster did go wrong in wanting to take on Leviathan all by himself to have all the glory. He was definitely misguided compared to Taylor, but the similarities in what they did are still there.

 

It's exactly the same principle, just on a larger scale.

I'm not a relativist. I can't look at the likes of murder, rape (of the mind- or normal kind) and kidnapping as anything but evil acts. I can accept that an evil act may be necessary, but in my eyes that just makes it a lesser evil than the one being stopped.

It's like the Allied terror bombing campaign of WWII compared to the Holocaust (I know, I know, Godwin's Law, but the scale is appropriate). One is an evil so absolute and abominable that it can be used to justify any kind of act to stop it, but at the end of the day you're still killing tens of thousands of civilians. Hell, the Dresden Bombings started off exactly this debate because it became clear (even to Churchill and Arthur Harris) that terror bombings were no longer justified.

I'm not saying she wasn't justified in doing it. I just disagree that it was a good act. Hell, it was such a traumatic experience that people had to have strokes before Taylor realised how badly they were taking being controlled.

Wait, so you're saying that killing an Endbringer would be a bad thing because less people would show up for the next one? Do you not understand that humanity was losing against them? Taking the risk was worth it for the potential pay off.

The reasons behind it weren't exactly stellar, but hell, I'd take an asshole hero that can kill an Endbringer over a nice guy that couldn't. From Armsmaster's point of view everything he did was necessary in order to beat Leviathan.

Also, you're trying to argue both sides of the same point. For Taylor you're saying that the end result made the act a good one. For Armsmaster you're saying the exact opposite. Tell me, if Taylor had lost the fight would it have made her actions any less noble in your eyes, because while their reasons for doing so differed, both Taylor and Armsmaster were trying to save the world.

He did it because he had to set up the battlefield just right for his new piece of tech to analyse and predict Leviathan correctly (any unpredicted elements would break it). Sure, he chose to put a few villains in the line of fire to get that battlefield, but he was still trying to set up what could have been a coup de grace on an Endbringer. Kinda like how Taylor sacrificed Ash Beast, a shapeshifter that I don't think had a name and a few other capes in order to beat Scion.

 

But Armsmaster had the option to talk with others, to formulate a plan to increase his chances of using his weapon, or alternatively, give it to someone better suited like Alexandria or something. He had other options, Taylor didn't. It was either what she did or extinction. Armsmaster chose this route because it was the one where he would be the sole hero.

He could have found and talked with a few capes who were willing to do their part, he had the time and opportunity and means. He is a leader with plenty of heroes on their rooster, or, alternatively if he had a more open mind, a few villains who wanted to have big fights. It is possible to get a few people to cooperate with you. It is, however, slightly harder (i.e. impossible) to get every single cape who is needed to do the same, especially seeing their different backgrounds, nationalities, mental states, personalities and whatnot in a manner of minutes.

Basically, Armsmaster sacrificed a few people and risked the system that enabled the fight against the Endbringers for the glory that killing an Endbringer would bring, where saving people, while on his agenda, took second or third place. Taylor sacrificed herself, her humanity, and a number of people who would have died anyway if she had done nothing to save humanity as a whole.

I really think these actions are fundamentally different, in intent, application and circumstance.

---------- Post automerged at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

Do think there is still a difference but don't think it's big enough that it matters, really.

This why I don't like comparing history with fiction like this, because the scales don't match when things escalate like this. I mean, Worm, it is humanity that is one the line whereas here, it is "just" a war and that is just a terrible and stupid thing to say.

Don't feel comfortable arguing with those scenarios because, quite frankly, I do not know what other options they viably had and what kind of exact pressure they were facing, even if I have some general ideas.

I do get what you are saying, though.

The question that follows this would be, would not doing this be a good act? If Taylor had done nothing, because of the inherent evilness of her actions, would she have been morally in the right? She had the power to save humanity but didn't act on it. I would argue that that would be more evil than her actions.

And if you only have the option between a less evil and an evil act, wouldn't the less evil act become the right path to take?

I mean, if it is necessary and the only option, what right do we have to blame the person who took the path, in that case? What's the point?

"How dare you do the only thing that saved everyone?!" is just such a special and unique circumstance.

Most of this I already addressed (mainly that it wasn't necessary) but I think another main difference here is that there are more Endbringers, which changes the rules. Taylor's opponent was "only" Scion. Win or lose, that's the one enemy to beat. It's either winning and you win the war, or losing and it's game over for every one.

That is a different matter with the Endbringers because there are 3 of them, alongside with the uncertainty that there might be more since they don't know where they come from. If they manage to pull of a pyrrhic victory here, it is really only good in the short term and ultimately not going to amount to much if they can't fight off the others in the consecutive fights. Yay, they killed one but how good is it if the next one bulldozes over the heroes because most of the villains, of which there are more than heroes, didn't show up or showed up and started to screw over the heroes, ultimately making this some odd battle royale with an endbringer thrown in the mix. There is a reason for the truce and why Armsmaster doing what he did was such a big deal.

May or may not have happened but it is a risk that Armsmaster took for not enough reason, especially, as I said, since he had other options, options which Taylor lacked.

Yes, humanity was losing against the Endbringers and yes, they needed to win but they needed to win in a way that allowed them to fight again against the next Endbringer.

But really, my big gripe here is that Armsmaster decided to do this to get the killing shot and no real other reason

To answer this, no, it wouldn't. If Taylor used the one option that remained with the highest chance of success and failed, it would have sucked but wouldn't have blamed her for it. (nor would have anyone else in the worm world as they would be dead) However, Armsmaster's main goal wasn't to try to save the world but rather to be the one who would save the world and I think there is an important distinction. Armsmaster tried to manipulate people to put himself in the position to kill the enemy, for vain reasons. Taylor did it because she was the only one who could.

 

This is literally the dilemma that is presented by the trolley problem. Should you do evil for the greater good, or should you always refrain from evil when possible? This is a moral dilemma that is not solved in today's society, so you guys probably aren't going to solve it here.

 

This simply isn't true.

It's fair to say that Armsmaster cares deeply about his reputation and doesn't like to be overshadowed, but his actions against Leviathan were justified in that he believed that they would allow him to kill the Endbringer.

Remember that he finished his nano-halberd that morning. He didn't have time to prove it or to formulate a plan with the other Protectorate to give him the opportunity he needed for his software to properly provide him the edge against Leviathan. To Armsmaster, it was a bit serendipitous that Leviathan would attack the very day he created what he considered to be the ultimate weapon against Endbringers, but no, he did not choose to murder villains over formulating a greater plan. This was the only way he had to get a real chance at killing Leviathan given the circumstances.

 

Ursa Aurora's creations are more like force-fields than actual entities per se but I'll give you that one.

As for Pretender, he wasn't exactly a hero, you know. More of a throat-slitting infiltrating deceptive manipulating mastermind type who defected from the Protectorate anyway so ... yeah.

EDITS: Oops. I bollocksed that up good and proper. Pretender is the body-hopper. I was thinking of Satyrical/Satyr. My bad

 

This is the trolley problem on crack.
In the usual trolley problem it's either 5 people die, 1 person lives and you remain "innocent"; or 5 people live, 1 person dies and you become "guilty".
In this instance, it's like the trolley is about to hit a huge pile of explosives that will kill everyone, unless you push the fat man on the tracks.


In practice humans are pretty bad at judging whether something is actually a trolley problem or whether they're about to kill someone for no good reason.
So we advocate against making this a general rule.

But if we're really certain about it, the right thing is to save the most people and not to avoid doing something "evil".
So if it actually was worth it, it was good. (If it predictably was worth it and not just randomly turned out that way of course.)

But at this point we're probably just rehashing consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics.

 

He still had more than enough time to contact someone. It wasn't like he was some no name beginner but a respected hero in command. If he says this weapon he finished stands some chance, they would believe him.

He just wasn't limited to that plan only.

 

If he told Legend to get everyone to stand back so he could solo Leviathan, Legend would have told him, "No, instead we're sidelining you until you can have your head examined."

Armsmaster was perfectly fine to follow the plan until it became clear that they weren't going to have an easy time of beating Leviathan back and became the active battlefield commander after Alexandria bolted and Legend got spiked out of the sky. At that point, any sort of asking would have gotten him nowhere.

 

So he could have done a priority call to Dragon saying "This isn't working, I have a backup plan. Get everyone the hell away from Leviathan."

Armsmaster didn't believe the villains were worth a damn at the time; killing Levi and getting a bunch to exit stage death worked for him

 

Again, Armsmaster isn't just any schmuck. He is a tinker and distinguished hero with considerable experience. When he says "guys, I have just finished an invention that may kill Leviathan, just need X" they would have given it to him. No one may particularly like Armsmaster but they do respect him and his skill. I find it very hard to believe that they would have thought he was crazy.

 

I can't help but wonder at this juncture if we'll ever get to see the foreshadowed "Cauldron can grant powers, and Cauldron can take them away" threat ever acted upon. Doctor Mother doesn't seem the type to spout bullshit when a simple "we'll kill you" would suffice to make her point.

And what is the source of 99% of Cauldron bullshit?

Contessa.