OK, I'll bite - I want to see where this is going.
Do you believe that an RPG can be objectively good or bad?
Objectively bad games exist. FATAL, for example, is poor both in terms of the bigoted attitude of the author, the uninspiring and ridiculously convoluted mechanics - (4d100/2)-1 repeated over a dozen times for attribute rolls, WTF? - the limp nature of the prose, everything about it is mediocre at best, bigoted and nasty at worst, and simply rubbish the rest of the time. Pretty much everyone who looks at it hates it, aside from the original author and his buddies. That's as close to objectively bad as any creative product gets.
That doesn't mean that there is such a thing as an objectively good RPG - it all hinges on your definition of "objectively good". There's no such thing as an RPG that everyone likes - give me any game, and I can find you a gamer who will look at it and say "Meh. It kinda sucks."
On the other hand, if you work on another definition of "good" then you might be able to find some objectively good RPGs. If, statistically speaking, more people like a game than dislike it, you might be able to say it's objectively good (although that does a disservice to love-it-or-hate it games that appeal very strongly to a certain niche). Similarly, if you can point to an innovative game mechanic in an RPG and show how that game mechanic has been widely used in later games, you could make a case for that RPG having a greater than usual influence over the gaming scene. But it all comes down to your definitions.
Do you believe that designing new RPGs is harmful to the hobby?
Not by default. The only way I can see a new RPG hurting the hobby is if its content was especially objectionable and drew the wrath of the general public. There
is such a thing as bad PR.
That said, very few small press RPGs are ever likely to get much attention from the mass media. Maybe if someone put out a D20 supplement promoting holocaust denial it would cause damage - I can see how the media might not differentiate between a D20 supplement made by a third party and an official D&D supplement - but that's about it.
Do you believe larger companies like WotC and WW change their gamelines less often and in less extreme ways than smaller companies?
Less often? Most certainly. It doesn't make economic sense for them to change their lines frequently.
Less extreme? No way! Compare and contrast your D&D 3.X and your AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbooks: that's an incredibly extreme change right there. And what about White Wolf destroying the oWoD - a setting which was arguably the main draw for WW's audience - and starting all over again from scratch?
Is it important for people to have an opinion about the people who design the games they play?
It is important that people are free to form an opinion. Personally, I'll buy any well-designed game unless the designer or publisher were actually shown to be white supremacists or some other kind of bigot; there is a point where I will boycott a product because I don't want to give money to the people behind it. I'm not aware of any RPG designer who's reached that point with me yet (aside from the jerks behind FATAL and RaHoWa).
So, chaosvoyager, exactly where are we going with this?