You've referenced the ending of Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal where you can become Bhaal's successor. This is not the same as destroying the entire world since there are other deities as well.
My comment wasn't only restricted to destroying the world. In the case of Bhaal while you wouldn't destroy the entire world, you probably would go on to bring great destruction to it. Bhaal was the lord of Murder with his domains being death and destruction.
Says me. There's no logical reason why every single atrocity that has ever occurred in the Middle Ages would have to be part of a computer role-playing game. Who needs a book to verify that logic? And sometimes options are only there because nobody thought of combinations that make them possible.
Then I say otherwise and by your logic I'm also right. There's no logical reason to allow the player to murder innocent people too or even participate in Genocide (Mass Effect series) but the choices are there and allowing for all the more role playing.
That's a rather bad attempt at mind-reading because I neither wrote there should be no evil options in games nor do I want that. I also play characters of different alignments. My point is that being able to play an evil character doesn't mean there is an option for every imaginable atrocity.
I never said that. If that's what you're arguing against then you're kinda of arguing against your own misconception.
I've got nothing against being able to kill children in a role-playing game, but you act as if one couldn't play an evil character without that option and that's simply not true. Computer role-playing games will always omit some parts of the character's life. I don't mind if killing children isn't actually possible, but left to the player's imagination because some players say this is more than they can bear.
No you've made an assumption that I said that one can't play an evil character without murdering a child. For reference to your last sentence, Skyrim modders instantly modded in the ability to kill children in Skyrim so it can't be as unpopular as you seem to think. Further more if one can't handle killing children in videos games then they don't need to, they aren't forced.
I think you've created an argument where you're arguing against something you thought I implied but I implied no such thing. So I ask again: your point?
Really? Because I know for sure what is real and what's not.
You're conscious again. That doersn't count when I'm referring to the unconscuious part in us.
And, by the way, the priests following the Conquistadores in South America really believed they were good.
Slaughtering masses of ntives they defined as "animals" was good in their eyes.
Stealing theirtrwasures and melting them into blocks of pure gold and sending that to Spain was also a good deed in their eyes.
Yes, even racists often believe that they are right - and everyone else is just plainly wrong.
And then enters the concept of Humanity. Which was easily bypassed by South American Conquistadores and by Nazis by simply defining people as "animals". No humans = no need to apply the concept of humanity and humility.
Edit : ALL of my (A)D&D characters are either "chaotic good" (90 %) or "neutral good".
Edit 2 : THere is currentl at RPGWatch a similar discussion going on :
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17581 Seems that you're creating an argument on an assumption you have about my statement. I never said that evil was good or that killing children was a good thing.
But while we're here, you seem to forget that there's two sides to every story. The Natives of America were the rightful owners of the land and didn't deserve to have their lands conquered for no reasons but at the same time I can understand why the Spanish thought they were like animals especially when you had the Aztecs and Mayans sacrificing innocent people (children included) to their blood thirsty gods.
