Forum > General Discussion
In Defense of Evil
Hurin:
I would add that there may be other universes (or even other parts of our own universe) with different physical laws. It is hard to all agree on the principle 'Cause no harm' when 'cause and effect' don't exist (at least not in the same way they do for us).
See for example this article, 'Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect': https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/
Now add in fantasy elements, such as immortal gods that are manifestations of abstract principles, sometimes from other universes, and I think the idea that their moral code can be reconciled with or judged by ours is problematic.
jdale:
There's a lot of invocation of fictional entities here. You can invent things as outlandish as you want, but when it comes to real humans, there are fundamental commonalities between them. You can invent things that do not share those commonalities, but I would submit that your invented entities are necessarily inhuman, and humans across cultures would reject them as wrong.
>Those people that have what you want are the evil ones and you are the evil ones according to them for trying to take it. Or, even more superficial (think religious differences) those people that think pineapple is an appropriate pizza topping need to be purged from the universe due to their heretical beliefs. As you said yourself, it's a construct based on what you believe. Neither are inherently evil. It's actions, often based on belief systems, that result in one applying the label to the other.
I am making the opposite claim. Pineapple on pizza, clearly a culture-specific moral rule (or more precisely a matter of food grammar). But labeling another people as evil purely as justification for taking their stuff is evil (or at least immoral) according to principles that are universal among real human cultures -- even if the real implementation of those rules is often flawed (another human commonality!).
Hurin:
Why are humans the center of everything?
It seems you're adopting a human perspective as absolute, and then when we raise examples of non-humans that would not agree in those absolutes, you say they don't count because they're not human.
I'm not talking just of humans or human morality here. Can you clarify if you are talking about universal moral principles, or universal human moral principles? The two are very different, especially if we're talking about a fantasy game in which humans are a minority.
Minority positions are, by definition, not absolutes. (Nor of course are majority positions necessarily absolutes either, even when portrayed as such). But I am having difficulty discerning whether you feel human moral principles are applicable to all other races/beings/entities in the universe and multiverse or not.
jdale:
Humans are real. When you find real non-human sentients, we can use them as data points. Everything else is world-building that arises starting from your own assumptions. Humans in our reality, within the confines of the known, are not the minority of sentient beings, not even the majority of them, but the totality. I've certainly heard of the tyranny of the majority, but there's a reason no one ever talks about the tyranny of the totality.
That said, all players of RM are human too. I don't think it's unreasonable to use a human standard of morality in such a case. All your human players will be capable of comprehending it, even if your fictional NPCs are not.
Hurin:
Ok, thanks for clarifying that you are talking purely about humans.
Note though that in denying the existence of any sentient beings beyond humans, you've also just denied the existence of God.
There are many humans who would reject such a denial, since belief in a 'real non-human sentient' (as you put it) forms the basis of probably a majority of human ethical systems worldwide.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page