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="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8843750" data-attributes="member: 86653">Okay, cool. Now let's talk philosophy...You're <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" target="_blank">begging the question</a>. You're assuming that killing a lot of innocent people is evil. While I subjectively agree, I know that I cannot prove it's actually bad. Most philosophers can't either. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism" target="_blank">utilitarians</a> had the closest to objective way to resolve these kinds of questions. And the gods of Dragonlance seem rather utilitarian in their approach. As stated in that quote from Fizban. They killed millions to save billions. That's a very utilitarian response. Most people really don't like utilitarian ethics, but it is one school of thought.For the utilitarians it comes down to math, which makes it more concrete. According to their view of ethics, it's perfectly justifiable to kill one person to save two, to kill two people to save three, etc. Take a look at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" target="_blank">Trolley Problem</a>. A utilitarian would throw the switch and kill one person to save five. Fizban reads like a hardcore utilitarian. So from his own perspective, he's perfectly justified in his actions. He saw that the darkness was closing in and would consume the world forevermore if he did nothing, condemning all future generations to misery, slavery, and eternal crapsack world. So he chucked a mountain at Istar and killed a few million people to save a few billion.Light cannot exist without dark. Warm cannot exist without cold. Order cannot exist without chaos. Good cannot exist without evil.Again, prove it.Are you familiar with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma" target="_blank">Euthyphro Dilemma</a>? The short version, modified to fit Dragonlance is: either Paladine commands it because it is right or it is right because Paladine commands it. Meaning, you have two options. Good exists independently of Paladine and he's reporting what's objectively good or Paladine defines what is objectively good.So in your estimation for someone to be good they must not tolerate the existence of evil. Okay. That sounds a bit extreme to me. But we'll run with it. What does that look like in practical terms? Armies of holy warriors scouring the land of all evil? Sounds a bit like the Witch Hunters from WFRP. To what degree does one have to be evil to be no longer tolerated to exist? Where's the line between what's good and what's evil? Who defines good and evil? Going back to the Euthyphro, does Paladine define what's good? He can't because if he does your argument doesn't hold water. So how do people know what's good and what's evil? The god of Good that you're calling evil tells them? He's not a reliable source of what's good or evil. They have to figure it out for themselves? What if they're wrong? Does the accused get a trial? Are the trials more like modern day courts of law or are they like the Monty Python witch trial where it's the weight of a wooden duck that determines guilt or innocence?But back to the practicalities. How much evil must a person commit before they're so far gone they need to be put to the sword? Murder? Sure. Rape? Sure. Torture? Sure. Accidental version of those? Say one of your crusaders accidentally kills an innocent good person in their crusade. Are they now evil and worthy of death? How will the other crusaders know if the murderous crusader covers it up? How about if you cheat on your taxes? Lie? Cheat on your spouse? Is someone who murders in the name of good still evil? Is evil inherited? Are some people born evil and therefore it's okay to kill them as children? How would you know? Wouldn't you need to be 100% sure before just killing someone? But if you're not sure and they turn out to be evil, you've just tolerated the existence of evil and therefore become evil yourself according to you. So shouldn't you kill them just in case? Doesn't that make you evil? How corrupting is evil? Can it taint innocent people by its mere presence? Do you have to destroy the village to save it?In your view good should utterly eradicate evil, so it isn't looking so hot in regards to letting terrible things happening either.Again, I'll point back to the Euthyphro Dilemma. If the god of Good defines what is or isn't good, then it's a perfect in-world justification because he literally gets to define what's good and what's bad. He says murder's good, then it's good. There's also utilitarianism. He killed a few million to save billions.</blockquote>

Verification