2463700

That seems a little... excessive (to say i can't read your stories).

Is this going on your page? to me, its on my page, so i guess ill put this so the reply is on my page. I am literally just thinking... "whaaaaaat the heck" right now

2463698
Oh. You're amoral.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I would prefer if you didn't come anywhere near my stories or my page again. Thank you in advance.

2462287

The ideal for a villains tale is one working their way up from nothing in order to achieve power. Working within a society that has moral structures, they must hide their goals from others. Of course, they must overcome the moral responses their actions generate, as you say. Forinstance, if the main characters goal was to enslave ponyville, they would obviously have many obstacles to overcome. In such a story, the natural goodness is the obstacle, while in more traditional stories it would be reversed and the protagonist would be trying to stop that from occuring. Evil bringing moral characters out to try to stop them is something that definitely happens there, as you say.

The idea that there can't be character development in such a story is false though. Why is the character evil, what challenges do they face, how do they progress as a character. These things are independent of morality. You don't have character progression by making them more moral, or more evil. Well, you can, but thats certainly not the only way. character progression is more maturity or how they react to things differently as their view of the world changes.

2462030
I prefer a more rounded, less narrow world, that is, one that actually has a world and isn't just a few characters doing things or a few dozen empty nothings. This view requires that moral characters exist because moral actions are how sustainable worlds with general progress and peace happen. But I'm a socialist and also a sincere person. I don't just play out things, I try to show what I find most valuable. I've given up kinks and ideas that were incompatible with my belief in welfare and security. I don't find the idea of perpetual villainy sustainable or sensible. To paraphrase Dawkins who was himself referencing Kant, if everyone is a villain with invincible powers, against whom would they perpetuate their villainy? Perpetual villainy fails the most basic Categorical Imperative examination.

Also, why should all characters be moral? Because natural "evil" is sufficient to bring the need for morality forward. Rockslides and animal attacks don't sexually abuse or enslave people but they still need responses. There's no need for villains wringing hands and cackling maniacally when plagues, famines, floods and fire are enemy enough to fill a million tales.

2461917

no, it doesn't say that at all. A character delighting in corruption and evil is new and intriguing. Why do you keep asking why? you can't ask me why, and ignore when i ask you why characters should always be moral. I did that to show that your not really being logical, as there *IS* no reason for characters to always act moral. I would rather have characters always be evil than always be moral