Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9228368" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Most people consider a certain spectrum of light to be &quot;blue&quot;.&nbsp; Same way that most people have a very general idea of right and wrong, good and evil.&nbsp; Of course some philosophers will have different approaches, just like color.But in decent lighting conditions where people can see my wife's car? They'll call it blue.&nbsp; If people have a good understanding of why someone committed acts we would define as good or evil, most people will agree.&nbsp; Of course there's a lot of misperceptions and disagreements, see the blue dress picture as an example. Some acts people will consider good, others will consider them evil.But my point is that for most games of D&amp;D I've ever played we didn't deal in edge cases.&nbsp; We know Strahd is evil because we're told he's evil repeatedly. For game purposes, I think it works well. A cloudless sky during the day is blue even if the ancient Greeks wouldn't have had a specific word for it.Meanwhile if you want to have a morally gray campaign with ethical frameworks based on advanced philosophical ethical frameworks, go for it. If you want to analyze color from a scientific perspective because it works better for you, great. But for most people I've played with over the decades? We don't want to stress out over edge cases or debate deontology vs&nbsp; utilitarianism. Give us over simplified mass market appeal good and evil the majority of times. Just like most people will call my wife's car blue if it's well lit. Unless you're from Russia where light blue and dark blue are different things. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9228368, member: 6801845"] Most people consider a certain spectrum of light to be "blue". Same way that most people have a very general idea of right and wrong, good and evil. Of course some philosophers will have different approaches, just like color. But in decent lighting conditions where people can see my wife's car? They'll call it blue. If people have a good understanding of why someone committed acts we would define as good or evil, most people will agree. Of course there's a lot of misperceptions and disagreements, see the blue dress picture as an example. Some acts people will consider good, others will consider them evil. But my point is that for most games of D&D I've ever played we didn't deal in edge cases. We know Strahd is evil because we're told he's evil repeatedly. For game purposes, I think it works well. A cloudless sky during the day is blue even if the ancient Greeks wouldn't have had a specific word for it. Meanwhile if you want to have a morally gray campaign with ethical frameworks based on advanced philosophical ethical frameworks, go for it. If you want to analyze color from a scientific perspective because it works better for you, great. But for most people I've played with over the decades? We don't want to stress out over edge cases or debate deontology vs utilitarianism. Give us over simplified mass market appeal good and evil the majority of times. Just like most people will call my wife's car blue if it's well lit. Unless you're from Russia where light blue and dark blue are different things. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification