As societal creatures, our need to group people and their actions into categories like good and evil is predicated on our own understanding and interpretation of the world. However, in posing the same question that philosophers have struggled with for thousands of years (speaking in Earth-year terms, not Gielinor-terms), definitions of good and evil cannot be transitory. In other terms, you cannot have conditional good and conditional evil. These traits of absolute good and absolute evil can be difficult to define because the world we live exists in shades of grey, not black and white.
In addition, just because you do not subscribe to an understanding of good and evil does not mean you are exempt from its judgement. We should be able to definitively define actions as being good or being evil through the same set of criteria, whether those individuals believe in such actions or carry other purposes. This does of course mean that, in defining actions and ensuing debates about their placement in morality, there will be some points of conventional wisdom that may turn out to be false.
For example, if current philosophy were taken, many people have an understanding of the devastation and damage that war can bring. But if there is war waged for a just purpose, like say a war against a tyrannical overlord, or a war between gods of differing values and beliefs, then either the definition of what a war is would need to change or a redefining of the merits of war would need to happen.
But as a point for changing definitions, it is not a simple fix to keep adding new definitions of actions to account for good versus evil. This is a cop-out of the real discussion, and to corrupt the process through definition litigation would be of spurious intent.
So how does this lead back to lore? Each of the gods claims to support good (their belief) over bad (others). But that debate is too nuanced, and I'm out of characters. Ultimately, it's a discussion for another time.
08-Nov-2019 14:31:07
