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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sashi" data-source="post: 4193155" data-attributes="member: 61842">They're not "removing the ideas of good and evil" they're making it so people have to be evil through actions, instead of just having "evil" stamped on their foreheads.When a Paladin breaks into the Red Dragon's lair and beats him to death with a pointy stick is he doing something evil? How about if a Paladin of Slaughter breaks into a Gold Dragon's lair and does the same? Is it the reasoning behind the acts that makes one "good" and the other "evil"? Or is it because in one case it's a member of "team Good" going and slaughtering a member of "team Evil" and the other case it's the opposite? Is it okay because one of them literally radiates Goodness and the other Evil? Consider that radiating Goodness has the exact same effect on Evil as radiating Evil has on Good. You could change the alignments to "Red" and "Blue" and get the same effect ("Is killing this guy okay? Well he's on Blue team and we're on Red, so yeah.").Very few people wake up and say "What a lovely day to get some Evil done." Most people believe what they are doing to be Good, or at least in the pursuit of Good. And, at the risk of Godwining myself, even Hitler fundamentally believed what he was doing to be right. The Allies disagreed and so he was bombed to smithereens. When the US Army bombs and Al Quaeda headquarters they claim that it is a good thing they did it, when Al Quaeda bombs a US Headquarters, they claim the same thing. Such claims are mutually exclusive. And the debate on who is right will essentially devolve into the two groups of people shouting at each other while gesticulating wildly, (note that this is a hot button issue, and I would rather we not devolve into shouting at each other and gesticulating wildly.).On the other hand, if you allow people to be judged by their actions, and for conflicting views of what good and evil are, you allow for the concepts of good and evil to take hold, instead of the rubber stamp "You're on Team Evil, therefore it's okay for me to kill you and take all your stuff."For example, Hextor could send an Angel of Vengeance after a party that broke into one of his temples and slew his high priest, but Heironious could do exactly the same thing. The two gods play by essentially the same rules, they're just on different sides. But then if I were to bring in a pacifist god (deified Ghandi or Buddha, if you will) he's not going to send an Angel of Vengeance no matter what, it doesn't fit into his idea of what good is. The question is does that make him "good"? Does that make him "more good" than Heironious? Are the two ideologies incompatable? Does that mean that Heironious makes war on Buddahdiety because of this incompatability? How does such a god exist in a world where other gods are empowering people with the ability to call pillars of fire to smite their enemies?Yes, you've removed "good" and "evil" as absolutes and labels, but by making it so that nobody radiates pure goodness, you've reintroduced the concepts of good and evil, and that's a welcome change.</blockquote>

Verification