Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6383406" data-attributes="member: 7635">The issue here is Objective vs. Subjective morality and that's stretching us into a realm beyond this board. Suffice to say its impossible to make &quot;good/evil for its own sake&quot; something unless their is an objective Good or Evil. D&amp;D has generally accepted Objective Evil/Good as part of its cannon; its detectable by spells, whole planes are made of it, you can be harmed by magic because of it, etc. That is assuming evil is always selfish (and by extension, good is selfless). Part of D&amp;D's supernatural evil is that they are more than merely self-serving, they seek to cause active harm. If they were just selfish and lacked moral qualms, they'd just be bigger orcs. By having them serve some greater objective (&quot;Evil&quot;) that gives them a goal even larger than themselves which in turn makes them more dangerous, not less. It almost borders of fanaticism, which when bent in destructive ways makes evil all the more terrifying. Yeah, they have a healthy dose of greed, envy, lust, and other mortal sins in them as well, but the idea of creatures driven in their souls to do evil is what makes them different than say, red dragons. And thanks, I figured I'd give two examples of where even original authorship hasn't stemmed the controversy regarding changes to the cannon, though I think Tolkien gets much less flack than Lucas does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6383406, member: 7635"] The issue here is Objective vs. Subjective morality and that's stretching us into a realm beyond this board. Suffice to say its impossible to make "good/evil for its own sake" something unless their is an objective Good or Evil. D&D has generally accepted Objective Evil/Good as part of its cannon; its detectable by spells, whole planes are made of it, you can be harmed by magic because of it, etc. That is assuming evil is always selfish (and by extension, good is selfless). Part of D&D's supernatural evil is that they are more than merely self-serving, they seek to cause active harm. If they were just selfish and lacked moral qualms, they'd just be bigger orcs. By having them serve some greater objective ("Evil") that gives them a goal even larger than themselves which in turn makes them more dangerous, not less. It almost borders of fanaticism, which when bent in destructive ways makes evil all the more terrifying. Yeah, they have a healthy dose of greed, envy, lust, and other mortal sins in them as well, but the idea of creatures driven in their souls to do evil is what makes them different than say, red dragons. And thanks, I figured I'd give two examples of where even original authorship hasn't stemmed the controversy regarding changes to the cannon, though I think Tolkien gets much less flack than Lucas does. [/QUOTE]

Verification