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

[Alleo]

Heroes to some are seen as villians to others.

This is not true for everyone. Zenos is a bad guy no matter the view. He does not have some (in his eyes) noble goal, he is just a monster that likes to hunt. Even guys like Varis are disgusted by him.

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.

Yet the Asicans were ready to murder the new life (that should have complete souls) too. And later if the source is whole again they too are ready to murder whole souls which even have Amaurotines in their mids.

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

WoL + party + Scions + Rhyne

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

So the Viera would be superior of the other races because they live much longer? Technology...hmm strange how the lesser races managed to travel back through time and space, something the Ascians were never able to do. We also have no idea if they are truly that different with their philosophy, morality or wider perspective. Seemingly even that united race could not agree on helping other countries/cities besides their own or not. Heck the first true conflict was between that race too.

We did not fight Hades with the scions. They only came in afterwards when we defeated him to give us enough time to summon the light to kill him. The fight was soley done between the 8 WoLs and Hades.

[Lersayil]

So the Viera would be superior of the other races because they live much longer? Technology...hmm strange how the lesser races managed to travel back through time and space, something the Ascians were never able to do. We also have no idea if they are truly that different with their philosophy, morality or wider perspective. Seemingly even that united race could not agree on helping other countries/cities besides their own or not. Heck the first true conflict was between that race too.

We did not fight Hades with the scions. They only came in afterwards when we defeated him to give us enough time to summon the light to kill him. The fight was soley done between the 8 WoLs and Hades.

Look, its not meant to be an airtight argument. He is just right enough, to not totally dismiss him and everything he stands for, and just wrong enough for us to justifiably murder his ass.

As for the fight... so running with your numbers thats still at least 16 shards and the Blessing, just to weaken him. And we still would've been toast without the Scions and the Flood aether.

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.

I would argue the opposite. Its worthwhile to discuss because its subjective. You can understand and respect the other side of the argument, without dismissing them as evil, and then still agree to disagree (and proceed to go stab them in the face if applicable). Not much to discuss if you view your values as objective truths.

...

As for the rest, there is a reason you don't see the words good or evil in most neutral definitions of morality, civil discussions between different moralities or environments of law. Even if we run with your definition, they are one sided, subjective and non-constructive words in a discussion. Evil is just a rude, simplistic way of saying that something greatly differs from your moral code, which, if we agree is subjective, then the word itself is just a holier than thou way of saying (and excuse the warhammer slang) "effing heretic".

And lets not pretend that humans can for one picosecond agree at large on what is moral and what is not. Sometimes even with the same values we come to differing opinions. Which is fine, great, and preferable to homogeneity as long as all sides can bring in well worded, reasonable and logical arguments for their ideals to the table. Constructive intellectual conflict brings advancement.

Both objective and relativistic morality has its own ups and downs in storytelling, but both can make for good stories if used correctly.

[linay]

I would argue the opposite. Its worthwhile to discuss because its subjective. You can understand and respect the other side of the argument, without dismissing them as evil, and then still agree to disagree (and proceed to go stab them in the face if applicable). Not much to discuss if you view your values as objective truths.

Agree to disagree works for discussions on best ice cream flavor or movie, etc. Morality affects human interaction and when people see something immoral, agree to disagree is not a natural response under normal circumstances.

As for the rest, there is a reason you don't see the words good or evil in most neutral definitions of morality, civil discussions between different moralities or environments of law. Even if we run with your definition, they are one sided, subjective and non-constructive words in a discussion. Evil is just a rude, simplistic way of saying that something greatly differs from your moral code, which, if we agree is subjective, then the word itself is just a holier than thou way of saying (and excuse the warhammer slang) "effing heretic".

They don't have to use the word good and evil. Right and wrong is sufficient. Like I said, your definition of the word evil is a problem because you're putting unnecessary connotations to it.

Evil is a more specific word associated with morality. Words like wrong or bad can have other usage outside of morality.

And lets not pretend that humans can for one picosecond agree at large on what is moral and what is not. Sometimes even with the same values we come to differing opinions. Which is fine, great, and preferable to homogeneity as long as all sides can bring in well worded, reasonable and logical arguments for their ideals to the table. Constructive intellectual conflict brings advancement.

If there is an objective moral standard, then it's worthwhile to discuss different moral values as people try to reach that standard. We're not simply left with agree to disagree while our natural reaction is to cry out for justice when we see something immoral being done.

Both objective and relativistic morality has its own ups and downs in storytelling, but both can make for good stories if used correctly.

I think it is more difficult to use the latter correctly.