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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9312473" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Anyone saying that the 21st century isn't someone who is interested in science or facts, I would suggest, or very selective about it, and primarily choosing to believe something to support an otherwise hard-to-support political philosophy. Particularly "socializes only out of self-interest" is just hilarious Ayn Rand-esque drivel which no serious anthropologist or social scientist could do much more than giggle at. You can't even say that about cats (if you actually know anything about them), let alone humans! Plus it requires humans to not be driven by instinct at all, which is again, fantastical Randian nonsense.</p><p></p><p>Also, just because a creature is sometimes selfish, doesn't make it not inherently social. Anyone trying to tell you chimps aren't social because they ate more cherries than they gave away is selling you a bridge, frankly (doubly so with humans, who routinely make more altruistic or group-favouring decisions than that).</p><p></p><p>So to be clear I mean unarguable in a factual sense - which it is - not that some people won't try to argue it. There are always the equivalent of Flat Earthers out there, for every subject. The less physically obvious and unavoidable it is, the more of them there are. Doesn't make them right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No? That's a truly bizarre and seemingly completely ignorant simplification of Marxist and communist thought that is also not even true, because opinions on the degree of human eusociality vary pretty widely in various different schools of Marxist and communist thought. I don't want to litigate that here in detail because ENworld is not really the place for it but I really suggest you might want to read and try to understand some Marx, and then compare and contrast with say, Mao, before making such wild generalizations in future.</p><p></p><p>It's funny because I'd agree with your general point that many people believe their favoured form of society is in some way "natural" and this is part of what the Greeks were discussing - but it's not consistent in the way you suggest. There have been many, for example, who argue that civilization and orderliness is not natural or innate, but instead something we have to work hard on, and therefore all the more to be honoured and sanctified. Indeed, that's no an uncommon view, historically, especially in Christian societies. It's a very specifically modern view that for something to be "good", it must also be "natural", and often sits very uncomfortably with ideas it gets put alongside.</p><p></p><p></p><p>With respect, those aren't easier to understand than Law/Chaos, they're <em>entirely different concepts</em>, which come from a very different place, to the cosmic, magical Law/Chaos of early D&D (which is what current Law/Chaos derives from and still reflects to a large degree). Also, the idea that individual liberty and regulation/structure are <em>inherently opposed</em> is extremely easy to argue as naive. A lot of un-hierarchical, no-written-rules (or even any writing) societies will kick you out of that society, that tribe, for behaviours that would be "technically legal" in a complex and heavily regulated society, and where you would be allowed to continue those behaviours, even if people frowned about them. Hierarchical and and un-hierarchical would be an easier distinction, but also not that reflective of Law/Chaos.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9312473, member: 18"] Anyone saying that the 21st century isn't someone who is interested in science or facts, I would suggest, or very selective about it, and primarily choosing to believe something to support an otherwise hard-to-support political philosophy. Particularly "socializes only out of self-interest" is just hilarious Ayn Rand-esque drivel which no serious anthropologist or social scientist could do much more than giggle at. You can't even say that about cats (if you actually know anything about them), let alone humans! Plus it requires humans to not be driven by instinct at all, which is again, fantastical Randian nonsense. Also, just because a creature is sometimes selfish, doesn't make it not inherently social. Anyone trying to tell you chimps aren't social because they ate more cherries than they gave away is selling you a bridge, frankly (doubly so with humans, who routinely make more altruistic or group-favouring decisions than that). So to be clear I mean unarguable in a factual sense - which it is - not that some people won't try to argue it. There are always the equivalent of Flat Earthers out there, for every subject. The less physically obvious and unavoidable it is, the more of them there are. Doesn't make them right. No? That's a truly bizarre and seemingly completely ignorant simplification of Marxist and communist thought that is also not even true, because opinions on the degree of human eusociality vary pretty widely in various different schools of Marxist and communist thought. I don't want to litigate that here in detail because ENworld is not really the place for it but I really suggest you might want to read and try to understand some Marx, and then compare and contrast with say, Mao, before making such wild generalizations in future. It's funny because I'd agree with your general point that many people believe their favoured form of society is in some way "natural" and this is part of what the Greeks were discussing - but it's not consistent in the way you suggest. There have been many, for example, who argue that civilization and orderliness is not natural or innate, but instead something we have to work hard on, and therefore all the more to be honoured and sanctified. Indeed, that's no an uncommon view, historically, especially in Christian societies. It's a very specifically modern view that for something to be "good", it must also be "natural", and often sits very uncomfortably with ideas it gets put alongside. With respect, those aren't easier to understand than Law/Chaos, they're [I]entirely different concepts[/I], which come from a very different place, to the cosmic, magical Law/Chaos of early D&D (which is what current Law/Chaos derives from and still reflects to a large degree). Also, the idea that individual liberty and regulation/structure are [I]inherently opposed[/I] is extremely easy to argue as naive. A lot of un-hierarchical, no-written-rules (or even any writing) societies will kick you out of that society, that tribe, for behaviours that would be "technically legal" in a complex and heavily regulated society, and where you would be allowed to continue those behaviours, even if people frowned about them. Hierarchical and and un-hierarchical would be an easier distinction, but also not that reflective of Law/Chaos. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which type of True Neutral are you?
Top