Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hardhead" data-source="post: 1234434" data-attributes="member: 2844">Yes.  I was, becuase people in general support these programs and elect people that implement (or don't dismantle) them.Let's get this a bit back on topic, alignment-wise. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I'm going to painstakingly not use real-world examples.From the SRD:   Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.Well, you can't get any clearer than that.  So, if I'm willing to have my money taxed, and that money go to help old people, or poor people, or disabled people, that's a Good act. Now, is someone that opposes social programs non-Good?  Not necessarily.  There's a school of thought out there that says that by not implementing any social programs, that leaves more money to be spent, and over-all more people benefit, even if some people slip through the cracks.  If they oppose said programs for these reasons alone, that's still probably Good.  Probably CG, because it places strong emphasis on individual achievement.If someone opposes helping people because, screw them, I don't care if they're sick and dying, they didn't earn the money.  Well, that person is probably neutral.  Most people fall into the first two groups, and so I'd say taht most people are Good.EDIT:This is the last thing I'll say on the subject.  I never said they were.  As I said in my clarification at the top of the page, I wasn't trying to be politically-divisive.  I don't care which side politically people fall.  As long as the thought is there (such as in the schools example I gave), it's still Good.</blockquote>

Verification