And you're kidding, right? The logical fallacy fun of a 'for the greater good' has been beaten to death with several dead horses. Look at your damn wording. If 99% of the population gets the 'best possible life' (whatever the hell random criteria that is), and 1% gets tossed in the soul collectors to suffer unspeakable torment for eternity, that fvcking fits your definition.
Okay, let me break this bullshit down for you slowly.
In D&D, if we could save these 99 percent of people that would be so outrageously ballin' that I would cream myself.
But seriously, there's already an economy that damns way higher than the one percent in your example and it doesn't even produce a decent standard of living for one percent of people who live in it. I don't have to go into too much detail, you're already familiar with it.
If these were seriously my only two options then fuck yeah, I'd pick the 99 percent/1 percent option. Hell, even if I was assured to be in the one percent of people who would eternally suffer, I'd pick it over the D&D economy out of spite for liches and Hextor, if nothing else. And for the sake of everyone else on the planet.
...
Of course, your challenge to this state isn't the first objection raised. The 99/1 percent is only a problem if you accept two premises.
1) This is not the optimal result. What is the optimal result is debatable. You might believe we can get a higher return than that without lowering quality of life. You might prize the number of people who live over anything else, so that 100 percent of people living in abject misery is preferrably 99 percent of people living like kings and 1 percent living in abject misery (or worse) or that 4 billion people living in Calcutta is better than 2 million people living in Hollywood. Whatever, I'm not going to question your standard here. What you're trying to convince me is that what's going on in this scenario isn't the best result for whatever reason.
2) Look at this first.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-exploit.htm You don't have to agree with the conclusion (the website owner is a socialist), just understand the scenario he's giving you.
What's my point? Point 1) is only immoral if you recognize it but
can't do anything about it. Remember that crappy movie Pearl Harbor? The nurses only had limited resources to treat patients. A lot of people died in terror and agony. Some of these people could've been saved--if it didn't risk the lives of others.
The nurses were only acting immorally if for some reason they were able to actually save everyone but chose not to out of convenience. Seriously, even today our high standard of living requires impressing hellish conditions on other people and the ratio of high life/poverty is nowhere even fucking close to 99/1 percent.
In conclusion, I completely fail to see your point with this. Not only have you failed to prove that 99/1 is always wrong but you've also completely failed to prove how the current working is better.
But then, its hard to take you seriously when you start talking about a campaign to change the very order of the universe in a way that actively harms the gods in the campaign setting.
And yet for some reason we still have pseudonatural creatures, atropals, and shadows who literally do nothing for the campaign setting but tear it apart. There's no reason why anyone would want these things around, least of all gods, but they're still there. Imagine that!
