Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6756154" data-attributes="member: 2656">This is where the disadvantages I mentioned in my earlier post come in. The disadvantages of True Neutrality are a tendency to apathy, slowness to act, being distrusted by everyone as unreliable, and perhaps pretending to a level of knowledge and mystical enlightenment they don't and can't have, because of imperfect information. No mortal actually knows everything, in most gameworlds no god or entity knows everything either. Which means everyone can make mistakes, hold positions that prove in hindsight to have been flawed or entirely mistaken.The extremes of Moorcock's concept of Law and Order are both incompatible with mortal life, something that isn't necessarily the case in D&amp;D. I admit to not liking the privileging of Neutrality in the Moorcock work with Law and Chaos as alien intrusions both representing a threat to mortal life.It's not the acknowledged supremacy I find most problematic, if advertised beforehand the players can choose appropriate PCs not doomed to existential failure (unless they want to). But DM bias, and particularly unconscious DM bias is a thing, which creates effective winners and losers in PC concepts which can really blindside players, especially when referees refuse to discuss such issues. If the DM genuinely thinks neutrals are cool, and good guys finish last, playing a good PC in that game isn't likely to be fun for non-masochists. Far too often I have heard referees say &quot;play anything you want&quot; and promise impartiality, and then when it comes to play favour the TN, pragmatic or evil PCs and sideline or make fun of the &quot;good&quot; PCs. IMO DMs should make a point of being very aware of their own biases in the interests of averting them,&nbsp; and not exhaustively denying they have biases to their players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 6756154, member: 2656"] This is where the disadvantages I mentioned in my earlier post come in. The disadvantages of True Neutrality are a tendency to apathy, slowness to act, being distrusted by everyone as unreliable, and perhaps pretending to a level of knowledge and mystical enlightenment they don't and can't have, because of imperfect information. No mortal actually knows everything, in most gameworlds no god or entity knows everything either. Which means everyone can make mistakes, hold positions that prove in hindsight to have been flawed or entirely mistaken. The extremes of Moorcock's concept of Law and Order are both incompatible with mortal life, something that isn't necessarily the case in D&D. I admit to not liking the privileging of Neutrality in the Moorcock work with Law and Chaos as alien intrusions both representing a threat to mortal life. It's not the acknowledged supremacy I find most problematic, if advertised beforehand the players can choose appropriate PCs not doomed to existential failure (unless they want to). But DM bias, and particularly unconscious DM bias is a thing, which creates effective winners and losers in PC concepts which can really blindside players, especially when referees refuse to discuss such issues. If the DM genuinely thinks neutrals are cool, and good guys finish last, playing a good PC in that game isn't likely to be fun for non-masochists. Far too often I have heard referees say "play anything you want" and promise impartiality, and then when it comes to play favour the TN, pragmatic or evil PCs and sideline or make fun of the "good" PCs. IMO DMs should make a point of being very aware of their own biases in the interests of averting them, and not exhaustively denying they have biases to their players. [/QUOTE]

Verification