Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 348528" data-attributes="member: 4937">Rhialto:  As any debater should, I freely admit that I have a bias in favor of good, and that therefore you are cautioned to be more wary when I claim the superiority of good."Your example shows this quite well--you blithely state that a chaotic neutral character will take the money. Some would... some wouldn't."And I agree.  But that isn't really the point.  We can come up with exceptions to everything.  It's quite possible to come up with good aligned assassines, but you don't really believe that murder is a behavior normally associated with good do you?  And do note that I did say that I didn't think theft was a perfect example, as it shades strongly into evil (of course, there goes my bias again)."For example, what if said CN believed in the dignity of the individual above all else?"Sure, but if he believed it was his responsibility to protect other individuals rights he would be hedging toward either good or nuetrality (depending on exactly why he doing so).  That is not to say that said CN couldn't believe in such things, but that (IMC) I'd expect to see him balance his benevolence or civic duty with some other slightly evil or highly chaotic philosophical tenant.  Otherwise, CN becomes so broad that it starts crowding other philosphies out.  Just as some were discussing players crowding out CE by making CN too broad, you can crowd out CG too.Your suggestion that he balance his 'benevolence toward the little guys' with his robbing from his wealthier neighbors and 'faceless entities' is apt, because you see alot of that these days.  But some would seem to have it that CN's are more law abiding or benevolent than lawfuls or goods."I disagree with your viewpoint of law equalling putting the group first. After all, if that were true, Lawful Evil would be an impossibility..."I've been meaning to address this little hang up too.  Contrary to popular opinion, LG is not 'most good' and CE is not 'most evil'.  In the west, this is a relic I think of Catholicism, or to be fair, probably organized Christian religion in general.  LG is 'less good' (almost by definition) than NG, and NE is (almost by definition) 'more evil' than CE.  (If you ask me the troubles origin is that law and chaos are fictions, but there goes my bias again).  Give you an example.  One standard definition of 'Good' is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'  Typically, we think of this to mean that good='doing good unto others', which is fine because for alot of people that's the hard part.  But stop and think about it.  The good that we are supposed to do unto others is defined in terms of the self.  If we do not have proper respect for ourselves and proper desires, then we will not want to relate to others in a good way nor will we know what to do for or unto them.   So good is neither wholely lawful (the group) nor whole chaotic (the self), but somewhere between (which is what we'd expect if we want our four axis morality system to hold right?).   Lawful evil -> the belief that the society as a whole most prospers if its leaders and citizens are ruthless in the application of power.  In a way, think of it as CE with the 'self' being an abstraction (usually an organization) rather than your person.  Another problem we run into with the four axis system is the natural state of man?  What are we enherently alignmentwise, but that's a whole other discussion."And about evil--I think you're missing what people are saying here. Not every evil person has the mentality and habits of a serial killer. They don't go around wearing dreary robes, and wielding bloody knives. Some are cunning, and imitate good people, while secretly being horrid and depraved underneath--and some may be completely pleasant individuals who, of course, just happen to believe in reprehensible things."I agree completely.  I've met all the individuals you describe IRL (though the person in the robes wasn't the person with the knife).  I think you are missing what I'm saying.  In the case of your racist (and I've known a few of those as well), consider how long and how far Grandpa Hendres can be provoked by the precence of an offending halfling (for instance) before he can no longer hide his nature.   If his will is strong (or he's terrified of something), perhaps a long time, but it isn't going to be that long before he's plotting murder, foaming with rage, or otherwise acting out his basic nature.  He doesn't have a choice.  He's consumed with hate.  He can't just say, "Oh well, since the halfling children are so cute I'll let that family move in right beside me without doing a thing.", or if he does we are talking about conversion experience.  So his actions are constrained by the things you so elloquently describe."And yet to say the man has the moral sense you described is a clear mistake..."Is it?  You mean that lack of moral sense, the inability to distinguish good and evil."...Hendres still percieves much of what is good and evil--he merely views it through a twisted, and hideous lens."Err...isn't that just what I said?  Aren't you just qualifying the statement by saying, "Not everyone who is evil is utterly depraved."  Sure, I agree with that.  I'd even insist that no human can manage complete depravity, any more than a mere human can manage complete righteousness.  Not everyone who is good is a paragon of virtue either, but that doesn't change the basic nature of good and evil.</blockquote>

Verification