Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gban007" data-source="post: 8843769" data-attributes="member: 56488">The clarification on intolerant stuff is good here - as otherwise the Kingpriest arguably was the only one of the good people you were listing that was being intolerant of evil, but the actions he was taking went too far / became evil himself.I don't think that Good and Evil can be objectively described, even if I agree with you on what are evil acts, it does still feel a subjective opinion - on the other hand, I agree that what is good and bad for people's health (physical and mental) and wellbeing can be objectively defined, and over time we are getting better at it as well thanks to science, and what the Kingpriest was doing was objectively bad.    Bad doesn't necessarily equal evil, hence one being more objective than the other to my mind - e.g. your list og egregiously evil stuff I believe is evil as well, but things like smoking / getting drunk - are bad for people's health, but not evil, to demonstrate at extremes that the Venn diagram of bad and evil isn't a perfect circle.My memory of the novels isn't as good as others, but I do wonder if part of the issue is that perhaps the Twins trilogy tried to retcon a bit of the original trilogy - from my sketchy memory the original trilogy didn't really get that detailed into what the Kingpriest did, when Paladine outlined him as good, whereas the Twins trilogy showed a lot more of what the Kingpriest was up to, but at that point didn't seem to call him good anymore, with the events of the true believers being taken up only really mentioned in the second trilogy I think?  Thus as the authors delved deeper into the lore of the setting, they may have themselves felt they needed to backtrack / contradict a bit on what was said previously, at least that is how it appears to me.</blockquote>

Verification