Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2059440-20160822192203/@comment-26884760-20160824163521

I'll be brutal here, as good as this forum is for allowing diverse discussion I am against the concept of "picking and choosing" in regards to ethical standards and whatnot.. ultimately we can't win either way because ethics is by its very nature polarizing and has no right or wrong answers, it is so very deep that every single person on Earth has an individual view of "right" and "wrong".. so there are literally billions of differing views, some simply share similarities.. every human has a unique philosophy that shapes what they see as right or wrong and we can't really enforce either way..

time-period, culture, backgrounds etc are too complex.. we can't really make any rules regarding that because it would be hypocritical - we'd be forcing our own Moral Absolutism.. there's simply no way to look at other cultures or time-periods without a ton of arguments and controversies either way..

I say we stick by the tried and tested "a character should be seen as wicked, criminal and dangerous to their setting" rather than anything bigger.. if a character harms their world more than they benefit it, they belong here.. the debates over their Fruedian excuses, values dissidents and so on can be left for Forums or Blogs or talked upon in articles.. we have "Morally Ambigious"  (Grey Zone) for a reason.