Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which type of True Neutral are you?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9312436" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I can conceive of a Lawful power asserting that the natural universe is nothing but chaos and that they are asserting order artificially on a universe where order doesn't exist. But I don't think that's the only or even most natural and likely source of a lawful viewpoint. I think that it's more likely to assert that Law is the morally correct position because the world was created in an ordered way by a maker or lawgiver or that the universe came into being as a natural expression of some external universal and eternal principles - perfect forms as it were.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I won't pretend to have anything like the expertise you have in this field, but I do wonder if your expertise here is introducing a bias. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think these particular questions are as you seem to suggest above unsettled to this day, and furthermore that historically different societies have attempted to resolve the question of man's individuality versus man's participation in society in different ways and come to different conclusions. I what you claim is inarguable is something that someone somewhere has argued. While I'm neutral on this question ("haha"), I do think it is strange to claim that humans aren't intrinsically individualistic given how intrinsically self-centered humans tend to be in their instincts. I think a parallel can be made with other social primates, such as say Chimpanzees, who exhibit sociality but which still have objectively individualistic instincts as can be proven by such things as the greed instinct with counting and comparison experiments. </p><p></p><p>Regardless of my own feelings on this matter, I've met too many people who would argue that humanity is an intrinsically individualistic animal who socializes only out of self-interest (and who should therefore never be forced into social relationships) to claim the question is "unarguable". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quite a few political and ethical theorists tend to argue that their preferred view of society - whether communal or individualistic - is the natural one preferred of by humanity and that if people can be just freed from whatever artificial constraints that have been imposed upon them by the existing social order, that they would naturally gravitate to and support the system they prefer and it wouldn't therefore be hard to keep going. So communists tend to argue that humans naturally like to work and to support each other and that absent compulsion they would continue to do so, and anarchists likewise tend to argue that humans freed from social constraints would naturally chose behavior that was not predatory but instead that would be mutually beneficial free exchange without compulsion and that corrective action by arbitration would be rare and society would just natural adjudicate itself. I'm not here to dispute any of that or suggest who is right or wrong in their assertions about human nature, but merely point out that different philosophical groups make different assertions about what is natural and normal behavior outside the structure imposed by society. Some say we have to be taught to kill because killing goes against our nature, and others that we are natural killers, and some say we are inherently good and compassionate and others that we are inherently evil. Compelling arguments can be made by all sides, and as such these are still topics we debate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9312436, member: 4937"] I can conceive of a Lawful power asserting that the natural universe is nothing but chaos and that they are asserting order artificially on a universe where order doesn't exist. But I don't think that's the only or even most natural and likely source of a lawful viewpoint. I think that it's more likely to assert that Law is the morally correct position because the world was created in an ordered way by a maker or lawgiver or that the universe came into being as a natural expression of some external universal and eternal principles - perfect forms as it were. I won't pretend to have anything like the expertise you have in this field, but I do wonder if your expertise here is introducing a bias. I think these particular questions are as you seem to suggest above unsettled to this day, and furthermore that historically different societies have attempted to resolve the question of man's individuality versus man's participation in society in different ways and come to different conclusions. I what you claim is inarguable is something that someone somewhere has argued. While I'm neutral on this question ("haha"), I do think it is strange to claim that humans aren't intrinsically individualistic given how intrinsically self-centered humans tend to be in their instincts. I think a parallel can be made with other social primates, such as say Chimpanzees, who exhibit sociality but which still have objectively individualistic instincts as can be proven by such things as the greed instinct with counting and comparison experiments. Regardless of my own feelings on this matter, I've met too many people who would argue that humanity is an intrinsically individualistic animal who socializes only out of self-interest (and who should therefore never be forced into social relationships) to claim the question is "unarguable". Quite a few political and ethical theorists tend to argue that their preferred view of society - whether communal or individualistic - is the natural one preferred of by humanity and that if people can be just freed from whatever artificial constraints that have been imposed upon them by the existing social order, that they would naturally gravitate to and support the system they prefer and it wouldn't therefore be hard to keep going. So communists tend to argue that humans naturally like to work and to support each other and that absent compulsion they would continue to do so, and anarchists likewise tend to argue that humans freed from social constraints would naturally chose behavior that was not predatory but instead that would be mutually beneficial free exchange without compulsion and that corrective action by arbitration would be rare and society would just natural adjudicate itself. I'm not here to dispute any of that or suggest who is right or wrong in their assertions about human nature, but merely point out that different philosophical groups make different assertions about what is natural and normal behavior outside the structure imposed by society. Some say we have to be taught to kill because killing goes against our nature, and others that we are natural killers, and some say we are inherently good and compassionate and others that we are inherently evil. Compelling arguments can be made by all sides, and as such these are still topics we debate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which type of True Neutral are you?
Top