Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment Issues!
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="jsaving" data-source="post: 5777613" data-attributes="member: 16726"><p>This would be an excellent principle on which to build the 5th edition system, in my view at least.</p><p></p><p>The one point with which I'd quibble -- and it's been suggested several times in the thread thus far -- has to do with whether those who support collectivism inherently favor "the needs of the many" whereas the other side favors "the needs of the few." While I do think there's something to that basic idea, I'm not sure it fully captures the necessary nuances here.</p><p></p><p>To the chaotic good person in the kind of system you're suggesting, freedom is what enables people to reach their highest potentials, thereby creating a better environment for everyone. It's not a matter of sacrificing societal goals (the many) for individual goals (the few), but rather a belief that those who coerce others in the name of pursuing societal goals are inadvertently inhibiting the amount of good people could do if left to their own devices and are therefore inadvertently harming both the needs of the many AND the needs of the few.</p><p></p><p>Listening to this reasoning, the lawful good person just shakes his head and says no, we need to act collectively to protect people from themselves and make sure everyone assumes their proper role for the benefit of everyone. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking to believe individual people pursuing their own ends could ever form a decent society, and if some people have to be coerced into doing what's obviously best, then those people were being selfish anyway and deserve to be thwacked so that the needs of the many can be served.</p><p></p><p>In short, LGs would genuinely perceive themselves as favoring the many over the few, but risk being perceived by CGs as favoring elites at the expense of everybody else. Whereas CGs would genuinely perceive themselves as making life better for everybody, but risk being perceived by LGs as favoring the fortunate few over everybody else. </p><p></p><p>That's how I see it, anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5777613, member: 16726"] This would be an excellent principle on which to build the 5th edition system, in my view at least. The one point with which I'd quibble -- and it's been suggested several times in the thread thus far -- has to do with whether those who support collectivism inherently favor "the needs of the many" whereas the other side favors "the needs of the few." While I do think there's something to that basic idea, I'm not sure it fully captures the necessary nuances here. To the chaotic good person in the kind of system you're suggesting, freedom is what enables people to reach their highest potentials, thereby creating a better environment for everyone. It's not a matter of sacrificing societal goals (the many) for individual goals (the few), but rather a belief that those who coerce others in the name of pursuing societal goals are inadvertently inhibiting the amount of good people could do if left to their own devices and are therefore inadvertently harming both the needs of the many AND the needs of the few. Listening to this reasoning, the lawful good person just shakes his head and says no, we need to act collectively to protect people from themselves and make sure everyone assumes their proper role for the benefit of everyone. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking to believe individual people pursuing their own ends could ever form a decent society, and if some people have to be coerced into doing what's obviously best, then those people were being selfish anyway and deserve to be thwacked so that the needs of the many can be served. In short, LGs would genuinely perceive themselves as favoring the many over the few, but risk being perceived by CGs as favoring elites at the expense of everybody else. Whereas CGs would genuinely perceive themselves as making life better for everybody, but risk being perceived by LGs as favoring the fortunate few over everybody else. That's how I see it, anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment Issues!
Top