NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8817937" data-attributes="member: 42582">The issue of objectivity isn't doing any work in your argument. You're just reiterating your view that (i) the Cataclysm is genocide and hence (ii) is not a good thing to bring about.No one in this thread disagrees with you about the wrongness of genocide. But in the fiction, the Cataclysm is not genocide. It's legitimate punishment, in the form of divine retribution against a people for the sin of pride by its leaders and many of its members.The real point of debate is this: is it possible to entertain the fictional idea that an act is legitimate collective punishment, by way of divine retribution, against a whole people for the wrongdoing of its leaders, and many but not all of its members while bracketing the actual truth of that proposition of moral theology?I assert that it is. Likewise, when we read or watch LotR we entertain the fictional idea that peace and justice can be restored only by restoring the true king to the throne, and by upholding and restoring proper social order more generally - and thus cheer on Frodo and Aragorn - while not committing to the truth of this as a political proposition.You appear to deny that it is possible to entertain a fictional idea about moral and political demands, while bracketing its actual truth. Obviously that's your prerogative. But the position you defend has implications that I'm curious if you embrace. For instance, LG paladin rulers of feudal kingdoms only make sense if we entertain a fictional idea similar to that found in LotR. So presumably you regard FR, GH and the other mainstream D&D fictions that include LG paladin rulers of feudal kingdoms as just as objectionable as DL?</blockquote>

Verification