Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4919170" data-attributes="member: 4937">So is Baator.  Dispater says to you, "Do you think that we have the luxury of compassion and benevolence?  We are fighting the Blood War?  Do you know what would happen to all your weak willed innocent worlds if we relaxed our gaurd and used your methods?  We mobelize every power possible in our society if we are to protect not only ourselves, but all of pan-creation.  Who are you to judge what we must do?"  Is he justified?  Is he right?  Is he 'Good'?The thing about villains, is even the ones that think that they are 'bad' by the commonly accepted definitions of the term, don't usually seem themselves as the villains.  They think that they are the ones that have it figured out, and are doing what is really right.  They think that ultimately, they are the real heroes.The end result, the noble result, will be the good of everyone.  If along the way a few lives must be sacrified, well, who doesn't believe that, right?  You can't make a world spanning empire that ensures the peace, stability, and security of everyone without breaking a few things.  It's for their own good.  Right?You keep saying that.  Do you think that everyone that considers something will naturally agree with you as the only logical alternative.  I think you keep get stuck on the labels.  They fight gnolls and orcs and demons, ergo they must be the 'good guys'.  'Team Good' is defined by the fact that they fight 'Team Evil'.  And 'Team Evil' is defined by the fact that they fight 'Team Good'.  And if you ever get confused, just look for which side has ugly faces, right? It is a very interesting question.  And as I said, I think its even more interesting to ask, if the 'right' and 'wrong' are going to be defined purely by utilitarian concerns, doesn't that mean that the winners are always right?  Doesn't that suggest that whoever has methods that work, regardless of what those methods are, that those are the ones that are right?You seem to have this idea that if the society engages in all sorts of evils, as long as their end goal is this Utopian society where suffering will no longer have to occur, that they are made good and ennobled by their end goal.  But, what if they never actually get there?  What if its just suffering and servitude and blinding pain forever?  Then what?  I think you judge the society as it is and not as it says that it wants to be.</blockquote>

Verification