Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6197277" data-attributes="member: 2303">On the subject of the OP, I feel that the extra axis you are trying to introduce could be termed proactivity. A proactive Neutral is one who wishes to push neutrality on the world, and the same goes for all other alignments. The opposite can be called apathy, but that has quite a negative sound to it. Reactive is usually the opposite of proactive, and that fits rather well. A proactive evil nation is expansionists and wishes to spread it's dogma. A reactive evil nation is content to oppress it's own people and will leave others in peace as long as they do the same. An evil reactive individual can be content with its situation and seem passive or even neutral when not challenged, while a proactive evil person seeks new victims. A proactive good is a crusader, while a good reactive is content to treat those he meets well, without seeking out evil to confront. Just as above, a very reactive good person might not seem to be good at all. The case can be made that a person that takes no action cannot be ethical, so I guess there is a point way beyond what we normally call reactive that implies complete neutrality. After all, a rock is neutral.In game-ethical discussions for the cyberpunk setting, we have come to use the term "good neighbor" for someone who's degree of proactivity is low enough not to be a bother. In such a setting, whether someone is good or not is less interesting than whether he is likely to cause us trouble by pushing his agenda on us. Of course, we tolerate more proactivity from those who's ideals we share, and there is a point where their other goals are similar enough to ours that proactivty is seen as a boon. But in these circumstances, a wife-beater is less trouble than a "good" neighborhood watch - the former keeps what he does private, the former doesn't. Of course, this is all centered on a group that is itself rather reactive - a proactive good group would not tolerate a wife-beater.In relation to my post right above, the etical rules for the paladin class forbids evil actions, but it leaves the degree of proactivity open - a paladin need not be a crusader per standard 3E. In fact, a paladin that is too proactive risks committing evil deeds by being too zealous as in the torture example. But a paladin needs not only refrain from evil, he needs to be both good and lawful as well. And to be that, he needs to act, so he cannot be completely passive.Hm, perhaps zeal is a better word than proactivity... what is an opposite of zeal that doesn't have a bad ring to it? Then, in my ears, zeal itself has a bad ring. I guess proactive vs. reactive is better after all.</blockquote>

Verification