|
Post by jtpatriot on Sept 27, 2011 15:12:50 GMT -6
I'm curious how writers and readers feel about various scenarios one might face in the post apocalyptic world. There are many such scenarios that might give one pause as to the morality of certain decisions that must be made. Just to start the conversation, I'll begin with one, the leader of a group in a book I'm working on decides to take no prisoners, a gang that attacks his group is known to have murdered, raped and left total destruction in their path. Comments? Different scenarios?
|
|
|
Post by Jerry D Young on Sept 27, 2011 17:09:57 GMT -6
I think it boils down to the overall situation as the plot develops. Kind of like other moral decisions. Is it gratuitous to the plot line and scenario, or is it an important, integral part of it to get the message across they you are trying to do.
I've gone both ways on that particular issue. Had no quarter asked/none given and handled some with expulsion from the community. Some even a supervised probation.
In the scenario you describe, I think I'd probably execute any survivors, if they were part of the attack in any way.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by patience on Oct 2, 2011 10:17:26 GMT -6
I would want to keep my morality as a writer and as a person intact. The PAW has many extreme situations where that would be tested, to say the least. I don't EVER want to play God. Fictional characters, however, have a life of their own, so their behavior must be consistent with their established character. Exploring the depths of those fictional personalities is, for me, the gusto behind writing fiction.
I enjoy reading various authors to learn how they explore human nature in these situations. I particularly like JDY's variety and breadth of characters, and their morality that survives the worst that the world can throw at them. Without that, characters become 2-dimensional, IMHO. Jerry's people are very real to me, warts and all! Actually, it is the minor quirks and personal limitations that make them so real, I think.
|
|
|
Post by rvm45 on Oct 3, 2011 14:42:05 GMT -6
Whatever you do, should be done because you choose to do it. If, in the aftermath of a Civilization-Busting Happenstance, you want to pardon someone of crimes that he'd never ever get forgiven of in our modern, and rather vengeful society..... That is cool. But if you do it, do it because you felt merciful--not because some of your followers were campaigning hard for amnesty; that you had a Head Ache and that you always thought getting Blood on your hands was icky. If you decide to execute, don't do it out of some Dolorous concept of "Duty", or for the "Good of Society" {Whatever in hell that is...} If you kill like that, you are the Moral equivalent of a Pimp. If you kill--that is, if you play the executioner--execute soley for two reasons: #1} The Client Deserves it; And, #2} Knowing what he has done, you can slay him with enjoyment..... Forgiveness? You forgive him. If you felt led, you'd pardon him. You are not killing him for Vengeance, or Recompense. You kill him solely because you feel it is Right Action..... And All Right Actions should feel good, were our head in the right place. i.e. You can spare someone, even though it distresses you to do so. You should never Execute someone when it feels distressing. Pardon him--or if you haven't the power..... At least wash your hands of the whole affair--and let the Vengeful take Vengeance--even when that makes you their next target. .....RVM45
|
|
|
Post by patience on Oct 3, 2011 20:07:21 GMT -6
rvm45,
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by a character being true to my morality. I mean that the character must have a solid sense of right and wrong. While it could lead to some pretty hairy outcomes in a PAW scenario, I believe that the sense of right and wrong must remain intact, or we get into some very dark stuff indeed. (Wanton killing, etc.)
I have no intention of digging deep into the dark side of human nature in a story. That has been done enough already, we know what it looks like and the PAW fiction that I have read doesn't go there. Justice is another matter, and must be maintained or the reader will be offended.
I have a type of moral dilemna now with a plotline I am working on. It doesn't involve retribution, but instead is a matter of property rights. Much PAW fiction involves the salvaging of abandoned property by survivors, and that seems to be acceptable in that environment. But what is the moral position of my protagonist when he discovers abandoned, yet stolen goods in TODAY's world? It presents a problem for my plot that I need to solve in some manner. I can't give out too much here without ruining the tale, but it has my hero scratching his head. He KNOWS it isn't right to take the stuff NOW, but it may become an acceptable thing if the world falls apart like he is sure it will. What to do? Leaving it too long may see it gone forever.
I think it can be a strong point in the story if I can solve it well.
|
|
|
Post by hua man on Oct 11, 2011 10:20:52 GMT -6
Patience, how available or needed would those goods be in a PAW world? How destructive would they be in immoral hands? Legal and moral aren't always the same thing. Stockpiling vs hoarding. Looting vs salvaging. Doling-out vs redistibution.
Sometimes, you get the ulcer.
|
|
|
Post by kathyinfl on Oct 14, 2011 21:48:39 GMT -6
What I try to keep in mind is that I am not the character that I am writing about. That frees me somewhat. That way the character reacts true to self and not necessarily how I would react. I know that sounds a little schizophrenic but I try real hard not to identify too strongly with my characters or the become too predictable. Because of the stories I tend to write iit is already hard to make sure each of my protagonists are not carbon copies.
This also, however, leads my characters to sometimes surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by bobkrack on Oct 17, 2011 0:21:52 GMT -6
What Kathy and Jerry said.
My personal morality says that participants in murderous activities deserve no quarter. If they felt strongly enough to not participate, then they will not be exposed to the execution(s).
Bob
|
|
|
Post by mnn2300 on Oct 17, 2011 13:20:58 GMT -6
I find that my charectors have a life of their own which usually includes their own moral code (or lack thereof depending on the charector). I have no problem with a charector killing someone who has been involved in rape or murder in a situation where there were no police/courts available. I don;t think I would have a problem with it myself, but luckily so far have never been in that situation.
|
|