Imagine if in the novels, while the Heroes of the Lance were traveling with Fizban, he just randomly decided to murder an innocent person with his magic. Whipped up a relatively small flaming magical meteorite that completely crushed and burned the innocent person to death.I am constantly confused as to how murdering a city and plunging the world into a post-apocalyptic hellhole is such a minor thing to some people.
Is it literally one of those 'a million is a statistic' deals? Is it because it was one action to murder thousands, it only counts as one?
What do you do in game when the players burn down an orphanage because one of the kids made a face at them?
That would be horrifically evil. The readers, and the Heroes of the Lance, would rightfully assume that Fizban was an evil, murdering maniac, and probably ditch him then and there. And then the books still said that Fizban/Paladine was good, that it was necessary for him to murder that random person, and that he deserves/needs to be worshipped. And people on this website started to defend his actions because "Dragonlance just has a different take on morality than you do".
That's what Paladine did. Not just to one person, but to thousands and thousands of innocent people. He was one of the 21 people that decided to drop a mountain on tons of innocent people, who all died horrifically. That's thousands of times worse than the random act of violence that I described above, but people are still defending his actions and the morality of Dragonlance, even people that think that it is wrong.
Guys, sometimes someone's/some setting's take on morality is just objectively wrong. You don't need to figure out a comprehensive, proven definition of what good and evil are in order to say that. You can just recognize that this one thing is evil and stop feeling the need to defend it for some strange reason.