**RESOLVED ISSUE WITH SIDE QUEST KEYS**
The game team has resolved this issue. Keys will be distributed via in-game messages and the quest timer will be extended.
More information and timeline here.
*This includes currently unclaimable keys as well*
**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.

Is this wrong?

2»

Comments

  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,444 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Bruce Dickinson'd
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Hamin said:

    Lormif said:

    The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Bruce Dickinson'd
    Actually it is a paraphrase of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,444 ★★★★★
    I'm mostly playing devil's advocate while I wait for my kid to get a haircut. But, I don't think his plan was totally evil due to what he was trying to accomplish. Still effed up, though.
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,444 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Hamin said:

    Lormif said:

    The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Bruce Dickinson'd
    Actually it is a paraphrase of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
    Oh I know. That version are the exact lyrics of the song, though.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    edited April 2019
    Hamin said:

    I'm mostly playing devil's advocate while I wait for my kid to get a haircut. But, I don't think his plan was totally evil due to what he was trying to accomplish. Still effed up, though.

    So St Bernard stated that heaven does not care about intentions, it cares about deeds, this is why the road to hell is paved with good intentions, because the deeds to accomplish those goals were evil.

    again, you can claim that what he wanted to accomplish was noble, it is arguable, since all he ever said was "life", never sentient life, just life.

    How he went about achieving those goals was 100% evil. He chased down and murdered a sentient robot for a gem. He murdered his daughter for another gem, after murdering half her race including her mother. He wiped out all but a handful of the last remnants of an entire race of people at the start. He finally ended with the murder of half the universe

    Again you can claim his goal is admirable because that is arguable, this is why he would be considered lawful, but he is lawful evil because of how he went about doing it.

    It would have been less evil to just have made half-3/4 the universe baron, still evil, but less so, because that would not have caused the loss of life and would have still achieved his goals. or he could have quadrupled the amount of resources in the universe, that would have been good. He could have went about achieving his stated goal of preserving life by any other way, he had unlimited power. That he chose one of the most twisted and corrupted way to do this shows the other part of being lawful evil.

    "Lawful Evil characters believe that to further their own ends they must impose order onto others and dispose of by any means anything that threatens them or the order they impose. They may have the welfare of society superficially in mind, but their personal welfare always precedes that or anything else. Lawful Evil characters are meticulous, and they are also often very cruel in their aims. Despite all of this, Lawful Evil characters aren't completely incapable of love or other like emotions, although it is viewed as weakness. Weakness is dangerous in Lawful Evil societies, for if one shows weakness he will be disposed of in order to strengthen the group."
  • KingBezKingBez Posts: 25
    Okay, soo here we go, ill put a quick end to this. Evil is anything that goes counter to current and or established social norms.

    Social norm: Asking someone for an infinite stone they currently own that you want to get
    Evil: Killing a majority of a ship full of people who just survived the destruction of their home planet. THEN asking for the infinite stone.

    Social norm: Taking your adopted daughter to see a distant place neither of you has been.
    Evil: Disassembling one daughter to find the other, taking her to a far off place and then killing her to further your own wants/needs

    See what im getting at?

    He is not lawful evil, he doesnt give a damn, he is neutral evil.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    KingBez said:

    Okay, soo here we go, ill put a quick end to this. Evil is anything that goes counter to current and or established social norms.

    Social norm: Asking someone for an infinite stone they currently own that you want to get
    Evil: Killing a majority of a ship full of people who just survived the destruction of their home planet. THEN asking for the infinite stone.

    Social norm: Taking your adopted daughter to see a distant place neither of you has been.
    Evil: Disassembling one daughter to find the other, taking her to a far off place and then killing her to further your own wants/needs

    See what im getting at?

    He is not lawful evil, he doesnt give a damn, he is neutral evil.

    A neutral evil character would not care about preserving "life"
  • KingBezKingBez Posts: 25
    Lormif said:


    A neutral evil character would not care about preserving "life"

    "A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. "

    Right from the pages of the guys who created alignment D&D
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    KingBez said:



    Lormif said:


    A neutral evil character would not care about preserving "life"

    "A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. "

    Right from the pages of the guys who created alignment D&D
    That still does not challenge my point. In addition neutral evil characters do not trust anyone, yet Thanos trusted people until they failed him, including his daughters. His goal was not power, it was not selfish, it was to preserve life, and then retire, which is what he did from what we understand. Nuetral evil characters also hold up the ideal of being evil as an ideal in and of itself.

    Lawful evil characters have no qualms killing people like a neutral character.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,307 Guardian
    Lormif said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Lormif said:

    DNA3000 said:

    For danger sense to consider an opponent a villain, he must have a "villain" as one of his tags. Corvis Glaive dies not have this tag, nor does Proxima Midnight. Kinda sketchy considering they are definately evil as hell.

    They came out when Blade was still destroying all content so they found an excuse to not give them the villain tag. It is garbage though.
    Shouldn't Marvel get the final say on whether a character they own in a story have editorial control over in a fictional universe they created is a villain or not?
    kabam is a separate universe, not part of the mcu, they are given great latitude.
    Um, yes. MCOC is not a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That's definitely true. I'm not sure why you're quoting me.
    because it goes straight to your question....
    Not entirely sure how. That question was a bit rhetorical. Marvel does in fact get the final say whether anyone thinks they should or not. But the point was that people asking why Kabam makes things one way or another appear to be unaware of the fact that the MCOC Universe is a Marvel property: even though Kabam developers and writers work on it, Marvel has the final editorial say on everything in it. To the extent that, say, Corvus Glaive is not a "villain" in the MCOC universe, Marvel had the final say as to whether that would be true or not, because that's an authoritative statement about the character in this universe.

    Kabam is given about as much latitude as any other Marvel property not set within the main Marvel Universe. But they aren't given latitude in the sense that Marvel lets them get away with stuff unless Marvel decides to veto something too weird. Kabam works closely and directly with Marvel people on all of the content: Marvel is involved every step of the way.
  • ẞlооdẞlооd Posts: 2,005 ★★★★
    edited April 2019
    DNA3000 said:

    For danger sense to consider an opponent a villain, he must have a "villain" as one of his tags. Corvis Glaive dies not have this tag, nor does Proxima Midnight. Kinda sketchy considering they are definately evil as hell.

    They came out when Blade was still destroying all content so they found an excuse to not give them the villain tag. It is garbage though.
    Shouldn't Marvel get the final say on whether a character they own in a story have editorial control over in a fictional universe they created is a villain or not?
    I'm sure they do, but maybe they just let it slide if Kabam was going for balance purposes. Similar to the scenarios where certain champs do not possess immunities they should.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,307 Guardian
    ẞlооd said:

    DNA3000 said:

    For danger sense to consider an opponent a villain, he must have a "villain" as one of his tags. Corvis Glaive dies not have this tag, nor does Proxima Midnight. Kinda sketchy considering they are definately evil as hell.

    They came out when Blade was still destroying all content so they found an excuse to not give them the villain tag. It is garbage though.
    Shouldn't Marvel get the final say on whether a character they own in a story have editorial control over in a fictional universe they created is a villain or not?
    I'm sure they do, but maybe they just let it slide if Kabam was going for balance purposes. Similar to the scenarios where certain champs do not possess immunities they should.
    I'm sure some of that comes into play, but in this case we don't need to resort to that either. In the Ultimates universe, Nick Fury was an African American. But that's not because the ultimates writers *changed* Nick Fury, it was because the Ultimates universe was different than the main Marvel universe and until they wrote him in to the story that particular Nick Fury didn't exist. That Nick Fury was a different person than the main Marvel universe Nick Fury, so he could be anything. There was nothing to change in the first place. If everything had to be the same by default, it wouldn't be the Ultimates universe. It would be an alternate retelling of the main Marvel universe.

    The MCOC Corvus Glaive is not the same entity as the main Marvel universe Corvus, or the MCU Corvus. He takes inspiration from them, but he is not them. As a result, the MCOC Corvus could be a villain, or a hero, or a mercenary, or the pizza delivery guy. Because none of us knows what this particular Corvus' backstory is, beyond what we've seen in the game so far. So I don't think Marvel looked the other way on Corvus not being tagged as a villain, I think they explicitly approved of this particular iteration of Corvus as a different entity in the game universe.
Sign In or Register to comment.