Search results

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. "

That's free advertising, I think. The book became known to many. I think, this is what the marketing department wanted, even if it didn't get actual results they were aiming for.

Sure. Inventing flaws is a bad thing, the people doing that is consciously damaging someone's reputation. But one thing is inventing flaws, and another is exposing said flaws. The thing is that we still need to know what happened, even if it was an ugly thing we rather prefer it hadn't...

After reading the whole topic, I can say that we can admire the person, Gary Gygax, while admitting he was flawed. And I think that trying to hide or negate his flaws is a great disservice to him, because we get an idolized version of him instead of the real Gary Gygax. And I prefer the real...

Double post

Can you elaborate?

Oh, I don't want to derail the topic again with something about the clash between new and old school D&D. Just suffice to say I find some choice of words quite telling. But, again, my opinion about this is highly colored by bad experiences, so I may be imagining things.