On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:17:00PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> As for judging the Blight vs. Countermeasure, Steel vs. Woodcarver, it
> can only be done relative to some standard. I would use whether they
> promoted happiness and self-development among other beings, and then the
> choice becomes rather clear: Steel is clearly using other beings for his
> own purposes with no interest in their self-development, while
> Woodcarver does it; the Blight uses other beings as expendable tools for
> its own purposes on a far wider scale than Countermeasure. None of the
> characters end up 100% on the good or evil side, but you can make
> distinctions between them.
I'm not sure I agree that none of the characters end up 100% on the good
or evil side. What should have the Countermeasure or Woodcarver done in
order to be 100% good according to your standard? What might Steel or the
Blight have done to qualify for being 100% evil?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:18 MDT