A Critique on Scathlocke/Lore Team's view on Good and Evil

So just so we're clear, this isn't meant to be a big ol' flame thread. I don't want this to just be a giant call-out thread. Rather, I want to dissect this and explain why I think that there is some room for two-dimensional good and evil. That said, agree or disagree at your leisure. #The Thread This whole thing started in [This Thread](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/story-art/0IEctYqf-riot-writers-what-do-you-have-against-the-usual-good-guys) by Stars Shaper, who lamented that good and evil were blurring too much in League of Legends. Scathlock went into this thread to discuss things. You can read the whole thing on your own but I wanted to pull out some quotes to solidify what SEEMS to be the position here: >As we've said many times - "good" and "evil" are relative, and we're not aiming for such 2-dimensional tropes anymore. >How about "good meaningless, evil meaningless"? Light and dark and subjective, too. >You're suggesting that everyone agrees with you, which data shows us is not true. Even this argument is relative. What you, in EUW, consider "good" might not be what other players/cultures in other real-world regions consider "good"... and vice versa. We're aiming to create a globally resonant fantasy setting. So from this, we can come to understand a few things: * Riot's lore team does not want any black or white morality in the game as it is a two-dimensional trope. * Good/Evil are meaningless. It's the action that should be judged. * Global standards need to be understood. I might be wrong (and if Scath wants to correct me, feel free!) but I wanted to run through these things. #The Critique So there's a lot to unpack here. Mainly that Riot seems to want a "realistic" fantasy setting with as much grey morality in the world. If you're familiar with the terms Noblebright (A bright colorful world where the actions of one can make a difference) and Grimdark (A bleak and depressing world where the individual rarely, if ever, can change the course of history), League would seemingly fall under Nobledark: The world isn't clear and there's plenty of horror, strife and sadness with the occasional spark of hope but the actions of one IE Champions can make a difference. **My main problem with this is that in constricting these moralities to make EVERYTHING just outright grey, it ends up feeling...well, less realistic and goes slightly against one of League's great attributes, which is that there is a story and a champion for everyone.** In life, there are people who set out to do good and charitable actions to the best of their ability. In life there are also people so hateful and self-absorbed that their actions cannot be defended. I won't give examples because we all probably know someone like that in both categories. The thing is that having these people to compare to gives us a wide array of morality in life. We have metaphorical heroes to call on. We have metaphorical villains to hate on. Even if you can make an argument for something, sometimes it's not a good argument and selfish or cruel. More important than realism, however, is that League is a game with 140+ champions. Champions people love. Champions for everyone. Do you want to be a snarky anime villain wielding a scythe of a fallen race of demigods? We got you covered. How about the preacher for the dead who sees death as the ultimate gift? Don't worry pal. Want to just be an annoying little gremlin who puts turrets everywhere with an IQ higher than even that previous character who just pressed R? We can do that. It's why I'm so disappointed that there is apparently no room for that goodness in League. As a personal anecdote, I like designing characters. I love designing champions for league. Some good, some bad. However, I like having varying morality. One is a pure-hearted soul who overcomes his moments of doubt and always prefers diplomacy to pacifism. One is just an out-and-out hateful creature whose only goal is to kill humans because they're worse than he is. There's no defending the latter and the former doesn't really DO evil. I'm a person who, while I enjoy realism, also likes there to be heroes and villains. Hell, the reason I made that first character was because League hasn't had an earnest, good "hero" since Braum. **What pains me is that with these words, you're telling me that there isn't a place for me anymore**. You're telling me "No we don't do that hero/villain stuff anymore". "No we don't have just villainy". And yeah, if every hero was that way it'd be boring...but why can't we have some of these heroes in League? Why can't we have some wicked baddies? To really understand that grey line between good and bad, you need to see burning, pure goodness and wicked, malicious evil. #Conclusion I can understand wanting to make league more nuanced but the removal of good and evil pains me. I'm probably not the only one that feels this way either. And yes, League is a global audience, but that's part of the joy with having 140+ characters and more to come: Some can be good. Some can be evil. Some can really tiptoe that line. Some can cross it and some can reaffirm themselves and show that their paths are set in stone. The beauty and joy of league is that everyone can find someone to love. Again, please don't take this as a callout and please don't consider this an attack against your writing. I enjoy league's stories. Just every once in a while, I'd like to see Superman save the day. If Superman never saves anyone, then you end up with Dawn of Justice or Man of Steel. And boy, those movie fuckin' sucked. QUICK EDIT: Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that there should ONLY be good/evil simplistic morality in league. However, I do think there is room for all types of characters from pure good guys to pure bad guys and everything in between.
Report as:
Offensive Spam Harassment Incorrect Board