Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2059440-20160822192203/@comment-2059440-20160822194331

AustinDR wrote: That's not what I meant; I'm saying that you have some radical Islamic terrorists who do what they do, because of their fanaticism. Pretty much, in that case, would their morality be questionable? It would be one thing to say that they were a terorist without a cause.

fanaticism is by default an abnormal and dangerous thing, no matter the time period.. radicals and criminals will always be "villains".. I'm more talking about the concerns we have when people make articles about less "black and white" characters : for example..

the Slave Master in Prince of Egypt.. his crime was whipping an old slave and it was horrible, yet he was ultimately removed because it was decided at that time (Ancient Egypt) the majority of Egyptians did not understand that slavery was evil.. the Slaver Master was doing his job, as brutal as it was..

the Slave Master was not shown as fanatical or murderous, he was simply an example of how humans used to treat each other before being taught that it was wrong (in this case by Moses)..

I'm not good at explaining this but basically : if a character is largely doing their assigned role in a society or time-period can we instantly label them "evil" for it? (excluding blatantly immoral factions such as terrorists and fanatics, who were seen as evil even in their respective society / time period).