Can we get choices that really matter and have a effect?

[linay]

You are thinking of normative moral relativism a more specific, more narrow flavour, based on the assumption that no side is ever objectively wrong, thus everyone should try and dance around each other. By default moral relativism is just acknowledgment, that your morality is not absolute. Right and wrong are very subjective terms, and only apply to the specific subset of people you share your morality with. Doesn't mean you shouldn't shiv the MF thats doing your homies disjustice, or that you should in any way compromise the values you hold.

Its about knowing and admitting, that what you are doing is your decision, based on your own will and values, and other people can, and will oppose you for it. And them doing so, doesn't make them objectively wrong or evil. Its just two different wills / perspectives clashing. How such conflicts are then resolved (discussion, combat, avoidance) is mostly irrelevant to the philosophy.

Moral relativism doesn't excuse or forgive anyone of anything. You own your actions, and the consequences that follow.

If that's what you mean, then I don't think it makes any difference. I think it's plain to see whether or not there are differing moral beliefs/values, otherwise there would be no conflict in the first place. Simply acknowledging that does nothing unless it impacts your action.

I don't think we're quite in disagreement on the morality part (even if our perspectives seem to be different). My issue is with the choice of words. Slapping someone with the "evil" descriptor is akin to using the word "heretic" non-ironically. Its a one word way to shoehorn someone into a narrow, antagonistic role because they don't match your world views. Its alienating, dehumanizing, and dismissive... basically the opposite of what the writers are trying to do with their villains in the game lately. People throw it around way too freely, both related to the story and real world scenarios.

I'm not sure why those terms would be a problem for you.

Again, defining good and evil is the basis of morality. If there is no moral evil, then there is no moral good and you're left with what you want and don't want to do, rather than what you should and should not do.

Heretic has a religious connotation, but it's basically in contrast to an established belief system/teaching.

There is nothing dehumanizing about either term because they are used to describe humans (moral beings). People don't tend to describe an animal as being evil even if it may do things that would be considered evil if a human were to do it.

In terms of alienating/dismissive, that has to do with the moral worldview. If someone fits the label of evil according to a moral worldview, then it's not so much being dismissed but rather that person has been examined by that moral worldview, which may result in alienation if that is what that worldview prescribes.

[Lersayil]

If that's what you mean, then I don't think it makes any difference. I think it's plain to see whether or not there are differing moral beliefs/values, otherwise there would be no conflict in the first place. Simply acknowledging that does nothing unless it impacts your action.

It changes the perspective and personality of the characters. From such change interesting philosophical discussion may arise, which may lead to different actions. It sets a different tone to the story.

I'm not sure why those terms would be a problem for you.

Again, defining good and evil is the basis of morality. If there is no moral evil, then there is no moral good and you're left with what you want and don't want to do, rather than what you should and should not do.

There is nothing dehumanizing about either term because they are used to describe humans (moral beings). People don't tend to describe an animal as being evil even if it may do things that would be considered evil if a human were to do it.

Our definition of good and evil differ greatly. Evil is used on humans exactly to dehumanize them. To differentiate them and create an us vs them scenario. Basically its something to disassociate them from us, and dismiss arguments by them. Label them as a lesser to us. You do not empathize with evil. You do not negotiate with evil. You do not listen to evil. You do not respect evil. Its a more severe, absolute version of saying they are irredeemably wrong. I would never use it on a human unironically (and before anyone brings it up, yeah, not even on mass murdering bastards).

Also, I hate to pull a Nietzsche, but people really shouldn't adhere to morality as rules. They should make their own decisions, based on their own experience, forming their own morality, and accept that others do the same. Looping back to what you said... a person wanting to do good is different (and imho better) from one that does good because he follows a set of rules that define what is good, and doing good is good because the rules say so.

That's the game's label. All it would take is a Miqo'te labeling all the other races non-human or sub-human to justify their demise. Emet attached labels such as "not alive" to the living so he could justify killing them.

Emets whole argument only holds up to a degree, because there are vast differences between a shard dwelling race and an Amaruotian. Even if we don't take everything he says as objectively true, they were superior in most ways by miles. One could argue (based on how they define life) that the difference is so large that its hard to consider us living in comparison.

If a miqo'te makes the same argument, it has a lot less weight to it, since they are barely any different from the rest of the races.

[Edax]

Emets whole argument only holds up to a degree, because there are vast differences between a shard dwelling race and an Amaruotian. Even if we don't take everything he says as objectively true, they were superior in most ways by miles. One could argue (based on how they define life) that the difference is so large that its hard to consider us living in comparison.

If a miqo'te makes the same argument, it has a lot less weight to it, since they are barely any different from the rest of the races.

Example:
Emet doesn't have a cat tail, he is clearly inferior. The Ascian Prime was no match to the race with the cat tails. The Ascians have renounced their flesh bodies and thus are not truly alive should be utterly destroyed for a safe and secure society. It's not murder putting the dead to rest.

[Lersayil]

Example:
Emet doesn't have a cat tail, he is clearly inferior. The Ascian Prime was no match to the race with the cat tails. The Ascians have no actual flesh bodies and thus are sub-human should be utterly destroyed for a safe and secure society.

Are we talking about self justification? Then sure, we've seen lesser reasons for much more horrid actions. Not very convincing reasons for the receiving side though. Basically they stacked the deck against us, stating that they were semi immortal godlike beings with powers to match that status. Still doesn't mean they were right from our POV, but to a point it makes for a more convincing argument.

[Edax]

Are we talking about self justification? Then sure, we've seen lesser reasons for much more horrid actions. Not very convincing reasons for the receiving side though. Basically they stacked the deck against us, stating that they were semi immortal godlike beings with powers to match that status. Still doesn't mean they were right from our POV, but to a point it makes for a more convincing argument.

We've fought an un-sundered Ascian already, he was weak as a kitten. Emet appeal to raw power was never that convincing. Lahabrea and Elidibus, unsundered souls defeated in battle by the very "lesser" races they claim superiority over.

[Lersayil]

We've fought an un-sundered Ascian already, he was weak as a kitten. Emet appeal to raw power was never that convincing. Lahabrea and Elidibus, unsundered souls defeated in battle by the very "lesser" races they claim superiority over.

It wasn't just strength. He argues longevity, philosophy, morality, technology, wider perspective, unity.

Basically they took a bad argument, and stacked the odds against our side to make it sound more reasonable.

As for strength, Lahahahabrea is stated to be exponentially weaker due to all the body swapping and being active all the time. I wouldn't count him as a proper representative of what his race is capable of.

Emet required... ehrm 9/14 (my math might be off) shards of a reunited Amaurotian soul, with 7 other randomly summoned adventurers, the Blessing of Light, a massive amount of random light aether from the flood and the Scions to defeat.

Sounds pretty reasonably strong to me?

EDIT: just to add up the number of sundered soul shards present on our side of the battle. Being generous and counting the random adventurers summoned by Graha and Rhyne only as one:

WoL + party + Scions + Rhyne

9+7+5*8+1=57 shards. Thats 4 whole amaurotians.

[Edax]

EDIT: just to add up the number of sundered soul shards present on our side of the battle. Being generous and counting the random adventurers summoned by Graha and Rhyne only as one:

WoL + party + Scions + Rhyne

9+7+5*8+1=57 shards. Thats 4 whole amaurotians.

Highlighting that the entire race of the Amaurotine wouldn't even be able to stand up to half an Alliance Raid only exposes their patheticness.

It wasn't just strength. He argues longevity, philosophy, morality, technology, wider perspective, unity.

From the sound of things, they only had 2 cities so they didn't last long. None of their technology seemed more advanced than anyone else's. All we see are lights and an Aetheryte. Big deal. And in terms of Unity, their civil war resulted in their virtual extinction. The fact that the human races don't follow the Amaurotine methodology and philosophy is to their benefit. The tale of the Ascian is a tale of self-destruction.

[linay]

It changes the perspective and personality of the characters. From such change interesting philosophical discussion may arise, which may lead to different actions. It sets a different tone to the story.

I don't see how. If morality is subjective, then there is no reason to have discussion or argument about it. You just choose your own morality and you live your life by it.

Our definition of good and evil differ greatly. Evil is used on humans exactly to dehumanize them. To differentiate them and create an us vs them scenario. Basically its something to disassociate them from us, and dismiss arguments by them. Label them as a lesser to us. You do not empathize with evil. You do not negotiate with evil. You do not listen to evil. You do not respect evil. Its a more severe, absolute version of saying they are irredeemably wrong. I would never use it on a human unironically.

I think your definition may be the problem. Evil is simply the opposite of moral good. If you can say that it is good for someone to help someone else, then you can also say that it is evil for someone to cause harm to someone else without just cause. Both are still humans, but humans are capable of doing good acts and humans are also capable of doing evil acts and calling it as such does not dehumanize them, but rather simply acknowledges this moral reality.

How you define what is morally good and what is evil (and how you deal with both) is the purpose of a moral system/worldview.

Also, I hate to pull a Nietzsche, but people really shouldn't adhere to morality as rules. They should make their own decisions, based on their own experience, forming their own morality, and accept that others do the same. Looping back to what you said... a person wanting to do good is different from one that does good because he should.

People can make their own moral decisions, but it is the nature of humans (as social beings) to share beliefs and knowledge, and society works better when there is a shared morality, especially when morality largely deals with human interactions, which means your decisions will affect other people.