DM_Matt said:
Sigh. This only works with a very particular world-view. Your definitions are quite controvercial politically. Basically, your rules combine Kant and Communism (Certainly by your rules, capitalism and everything taht surrounds it is evil). Many people have serious issues with one or both.
Absolutely. Very Orwellian. If you don't like the label, change it so that it no longer applies. Slavery, rape, and torture aren't evil. They are double ungood.
Enough with the moral equivalency fallacy. One man's evil brigand or dark lord is another man's good freedom fighter or great ruler and all that garbage. Terminology may be relative. But the facts on who targets the innocent and who doesn't, objectively defines who is Good and who is Evil. Regardless, of the words used by anyone to describe their actions.
I also find the Dragonlance campaign setting cool in imagery but laughable in its universal assumptions. That too much good is some sort of undesirable outcome. Often the priestking of Istar is trotted out as the example of what happens when good is in charge. Thought police and all that. And of course, everyone knows Takhisis is evil because she just wants to conquer everything and oppress those beneath her, yet many Knights of Takhisis are portrayed as sympathetic characters. See? The relativists cry. You can't just paint Good or Evil with a broad brush. So neutrality is the desired outcome. Some sort of balance is sought because neutrality is best. Neutrality takes the best qualities of both evil and good for the benefit of everyone.
Not only is this utterly absurd, its WRONG! Good and evil aren't just teams where the players on both sides can do good or bad things.
Good is always good. No matter what. Period. Such is the very definition of the word. Likewise, Evil is always evil. No exceptions.
Where the problem arises is when people take and use these terms incorrectly to obscure or couch their motives and actions in language more favorable to themselves. So, although the terminology employed by such people may be used in a deceitful manner, it in no way changes the objective reality of whether their actions or motives truly are Good or Evil.
Just because the Kingpriest of Istar in the Dragonlance setting promoted a thought police policy, and just because he was supposedly "good", doesn't mean that he was actually good or that such an oppression is good at all. (How do we know he was good? The authors told us
)
Likewise, just because the authors tell us the Knights of Takhisis are evil. Obviously many of them are not. No, this is not proof that evil has "good" qualities. How absurd! Rather it is proof that those individuals are just not evil.
Opposing the Kingpriest was not an act of neutrality or an act of evil. It was an act of good! Likewise, opposing Takhisis in her evil plans and acts is also an act of good.
This begs the question, what is so desirable about the evil that the gods of neutrality seek balance? If there is something about evil that is desirable or "good" than its not really evil is it? In fact, its good. And if some supposedly "good" act is not really good, then its not. Its evil.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! Get the compfy chair!
