From what i’ve heard, I don’t even think immolation would do the trick. I mean, you remember Barney? Remember how back in '79 (that’s 1779 for you young’uns) he got all liquored up and was waving that sword of his all around in the hay loft during a wicked little thunderstorm, when all the sudden,
BOOM!
He got struck by lightning and that also caused the whole hayloft to go up in flames. I tell ya, there wasn’t much left of that poor ol’ chap, but he pulled through it all just fine!
Well, physically he did, mentally, it warped that poor little mind of his so bad he went bestial for a short time. But ya know, after a couple hundred years, he got better!
On a serious note in relation to the OP, I would say that as an immortal, while you would proabably be born with one set of moral ethics, I would think that after a couple hundred years, there would be shifts, or wholesale changes in your moralistic compass depending upon what you’ve seen, experienced, or even fought or survived against.
I would think that the Oldest of the immortals would have a very loose Set of morals, either good or bad, and less worries about whether a certain action in and of itself is inherently good or evil in and of itself.
Only one thing to do: round up a couple of good immortals and start seeking out and killing evil immortals, making sure there are no evil ones left at the Gathering. When that time comes, the good guys flip coins to see who gets to live.
Here’s the rub. If a “Good” immortal starts going out and taking heads they pretty much lose the “Good” status. Premeditated murder, even if the guy was really evil and you had good reason to believe he’d come after you some day, pretty much falls under the “Bad” category. I believe this would hold even across moral shifts which would certainly accompany a multiple-century lifespan. Aggression, especially with intent to kill, has fallen under the umbrella of “evil” in every society I’ve ever even heard about. Perhaps it is occasionally considered the “lesser of evils” but it is certainly still “evil”.(this is honestly not meant as a commentary on recent real-world events)
The best the “Good” immortals could do, with any hope of retaining the title of “Good”, would be to train together and help each other through sharing info on the movements of the “Evil” immortals. This would keep the number of “Good” immortals who fall victim to ambush or end up in unwanted confrontations to a minimum. Now the only resource of immortals the “Evils” have to draw on is their own numbers. A few of the “Good” immortals who wander too far from the rest of the pack or can’t get back onto holy ground fast enough or whose families are threatened and fall in defense or who accept challenges, etc. will still fall each year but the number can be minimized.
Eventually a “Evil” immortal, through the mechanics of the quickening, will become so highly skilled that he feels capable of penetrating the “herd” of the “Good” immortals. At this point it breaks down based upon the rules of combat for Immortals(something the movies and television show have not been consistent with). Can the “Good” immortals keep away from this Uber-Evil long enough to drive him mad with frustration(weakening him sufficiently that he falls to another “evil” immortal who may or may not continue his attempts to penetrate the herd) or can they defeat him and end up with an Uber-Good who could be used as a champion when another Uber-Evil arises?
Basically I believe the co-operative nature of those considered “good”(this nature being pretty much forced by the definition of the word) would trump the more anarchic nature of the “evil” immortals. I’m not sure the prize would ever be won, or if this “paradise” would ever occur, but I don’t think evil would really have a chance.
Except… What if it comes down to the point where there is one “good” and one “bad” left? The “good” would know that the "bad’ is going to come after him and that if he is defeated, that will be bad for all of us mere mortals. What if he felt he had the best opportunity for victory by attacking first, simply due to the previous “good” behavior?
Yes, that would be “bad” but isn’t there such a thing as the greater good?
But see, if he hunts down the bad, he himself becomes bad and if he wins the mortals still lose. Aggression = bad. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And, as the rules state, if the last immortal is evil, the mortals lose. To stay “good” you’re pretty much locked into defensive combat only.
I might be wrong, but I used to watch the series now and then. I always assumed that the Gathering would happen because of the evil side. If the good immortals didn’t kill anyone and never did anything, then they would never gain power, but if the evil people killed and gained more power then they wouldn’t be able to defend themselves against such a powerful enemy.
There was very little in the way of hard facts given in the shows, especially regarding the effects of quickening. I do recall, from Highlander IV: Endgame that there was an Uber-Evil immortal with over 600 confirmed kills and he was going after two “good” guys with ~200 kills each. One of the “good” guys challenged the other and demanded his head be taken to bolster the survivor’s strength to defeat uber-evil. The exact numbers were something like 256 kills for the guy who sacrificed himself and 179 kills for the guy who survived to face the uber. Even total they’re still a good bit under the total of the “bad” guy, but guess what, he still won.
Essentially I’m not sure if the number of kills and the “power” differential really matters. It depends on the mechanics of “the Quickening”. I would guess that, given the parts which we know happen, absorption of life memories and experience, there would be a point of diminishing returns the more heads one took. The first head you took would probably be a huge rush. You learn lots of new insights and combat tricks you had not learned personally. Given the nature of sword-based combat tactics I’d guess that after 600 heads then 601st head probably didn’t contain anything you didn’t already know.
A certain number of dirty tricks will undoubtedly be gleaned per head, but if they would be useful is another question. Perhaps the head you just took prefered a Scottish Claymore and you prefer a Katana. Not much you’re going to learn there that will help you in your next combat, unless the opponent wields a claymore of course.
For this reason I’d put highly-trained “good” immortals on a fairly even footing, odds of winning wise, with “evil” immortals who actually have a few heads under their belts. Training isn’t as good as real-world experience, but it can be damn close.
I say when it comes down to the final two, the “good” hunting down the “evil” is a good thing. The Evil immortals usually showed no compunction in hurting or killing mortals just for fun, so finding him and putting a stop to that sort of thing (forever!) is unequivacable(sp?) good in my book.
Another interesting moral dilemma. Say you are a “good” immortal. You have just been attacked by, and beaten a “bad” immortal with far more kills than yourself. Do you now understand the joy that the “bad” immortal experiences by being “bad”. In other words, can you be lured to the dark side, so to speak?
In one episode of the series, yes. There was a legend of a so-called “Dark Quickening.” A friend of Duncan’s killed a really bad guy, and became evil himself. Duncan was forced to take him down, and became evil himself. It was resolved in a really lame way: Duncan found a magic pool that was able to reintegrate both sides of himself. In his mind, his evil and good sides fought. The good side won, and Duncan went back to normal
A similar thing happened to Darius. He once was evil, but killed an immortal of such great good that it turned him from that path and he became a monk living on holy ground.
