Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3293430" data-attributes="member: 4937">Agreed, and you are right.  But nonetheless, Hussar is right also.  It took me a while to see it too, because I was looking at the problem from the standpoint of 'good' and I had to back up a bit.As far as good is concerned, the absence of good is evil.  Good detests the amoral as well as the immoral and doesn't necessarily draw a great distinction between them.  Good considers it as (or almost as) abominable to stand by and watch someone drown when you could help as to push them in the first place.But Hussar correctly pointed out that although the inactivity violated one of the commandments of good to take action, it made it only 'not good' rather than 'evil'.  And then, reminding me of what I had wrote not many posts earlier, it becomes clear that 'passive not good' is nuetral under the D&D system.Just just because something is nuetral doesn't necessarily imply that it isn't detestable to good.  Interesting, this line of thought is the strongest attack I've seen available thus far on Hussar's wood cutter example, and I don't recall anyone making it (though I could have missed it) in the haste to focus on the notion of 'intention'.  I'm pretty sure it doesn't hold but it would have been I think a more interesting argument nonetheless.</blockquote>