Search results

Well, that's the point: taking away agency falls into the Evil department in my book. A person should be allowed to save or damn their soul on their own free will. You can stop that evil choice by persuasion, force or another method of your choice, but the moment you take away that...

But that would be a group of people choosing to behave that way because of their beliefs (and that is something I can use in my games), not because there is some cosmic force that enforces lukewarmness in the multiverse, something that makes no sense as it forces Good to be Actually-not-Good, or...

And they oppose those that try to impose their morality on others... By trying to impose their own lack of morality on others!

Again, implementation. Is that process something forced upon everyone? Or something that everyone wants and accepted on their free will? The existence of the musclehead neutrals means that no, no everyone want that. So, it is forced, and then it is evil. It doesn't matter if the result is...

Again, it's not the intention but how it's implemented. I'm willingly joining the Godhead, or are you forcing me to do it? It doesn't matter if you give me the ultimate bliss, if that bliss is forced, because that would be tyranny.

Depends. How are you implementing the "better universe"? Are you sharing your pacifist ways by force, or are you allowing people to choose them on their own free will? Is your "better universe" the best for everyone, or just for yourself and likeminded individuals? If an individual has good...

Yeah, that's my idea. Both Light and Darkness have qualities of good and evil. Light nurtures life, but too much light can burn and destroy life. Darkness will swallow all of Creation, but a certain shade of darkness is needed for life to rest and replenish. So, both forces complement each...

Are these questions in the context of @Umbran's premises? According to these premises, Good is totally ok with the destruction of the universe just to accomplish its goal of achieving the Ultimate Good. For me, that's not Good. That's Evil with a hat.

Again, all this means that Good is not actually good, but rather a well-intentioned and less mean-Evil.

That's why in my games is Light and Darkness rather than Good and Evil. I was trying to adapt that premise to the muscle neutrality, but as you said yourself, is not a perfect fit.

Not in and of itself, but it would be a consequence of it. In a world where the struggle to live is not necessary anymore, where you don't need to be worried about someone is going to kill you because they want to rob you; or the lion and the deer can coexist together without the lioness never...

Well, that's one of my issues with alignment. That "Good" not good, it's just Evil with another name. Anyways, on topic. I'm one of those who dislike the idea of "muscular neutrality," I just think it makes no sense. Good is Good and Evil is Evil in my view. The thing that "Good is not actually...

So, he is the one we should thank for the interminable alignment debates of the last 45+ years?

Oh, no. If equating law to good and chaos to evil is problematic (although is not something exclusive to 4e, according to what Snarf posted, but is only considered a problem in 4e, it seems...), doing only good vs evil would have been worse. Personally, I would have preferred an order...

This. I think the same.

What's the difference between "chaotic evil neutrals" and "evil chaotic neutrals"?

I was under the impression that all orcs were green like the first one you posted, and that they were changed to grey in 4e, lol

Still, as the trope page you quoted rightly pointed out, that something has a historical context "doesn't automatically make the work immune to criticism. "