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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DrWho2010]

also for people that want to "experience everything" on the same character - since that is what this game has - if you had "branching" storylines people would complain that they can't see the whole game on their character. (i mean look at how the community reacts/reacted with the BA choice with Krile/Ejika).

[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.