Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6340192" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm well aware of the origins! I just think it's really completely nuts once G/E get involved, and note that Moorcock didn't touch that sort of thing with a 10' pole, portraying both Law and Chaos as rather morally bankrupt.The idea that we should "not want Good to win" is, frankly, so questionable that it calls the very meaning of the word/concept "Good" into question. It also makes Neutral into something far more than mere neutrality - "Survival" or "Freedom" or something. So means that NN bears far too much weight, covering both the average person, non-sentient beings, and crusaders fighting to "preserve the balance".(Total tangent, but if anyone has read The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe, they sort of discuss this towards the end, that they need to essentially keep the world in a state that is neither good/merciful/fair/just nor chaotic/vengeful/evil/unjust, because neither is sustainable until the New Sun comes - then it seems to be presumed that good/justice and particularly mercy (a far too forgotten concept in this age of glorified vengeance and "taking no chances") will prevail - but it's human nature that's the flaw here, not some supernatural deal, well, other than in that the New Sun will enable a victory over this)Luckily 5E has moved away from this, with a separate "unaligned" for non-sentients, and seemingly none of this "You don't REALLY want Good to win!" business. Indeed it's new cosmology appears to directly contradict what you're suggesting - Good gods are cited as specifically being the ones who created free will (I kind of question this but I think it's sensible at the same time), with Evil gods creating creatures who don't possess full free will.(Agree with your assessment of the soldier's CG alignment, though, if we take it like that)Hmmmmmm. I can kind of see this both ways.Personally I think it depends on whether takes a "God's Eye" view or not. If you don't, then yeah, the proof can only be in the pudding, in external activities.If you do, then you can tell the difference between these two characters:1) A guy who thinks nasty/evil thoughts a lot, occasionally says scary things, but who doesn't act solely because he is afraid of the personal consequences for himself.and2) A guy who thinks nasty/evil thoughts a lot, occasionally says scary things, but who, ultimately, wouldn't act on this because his conscience/humanity(elfmanity/orcmanity?) would kick in if he actually given the chance.Guy 1, the moment he has no fear of consequences, will be as Evil as can be. If he was suddenly empowered or whatever, he'd be the monster he always has been. Guy 2, if he's empowered, if personal consequences go away, he's still going to choke (thank goodness!) because he still, somewhere, has his humanity/conscience.With a God's Eye view, I'd label the former Evil and the latter Neutral. Again though, take out the God's Eye element and I agree, they both appear neutral!(This reminds me of a bizarre incident in a game decades ago where the players became certain a basically harmless but rather rude NPC was totally Evil, and stalked the hell out of him trying to prove it. It was hysterical, in a demented way.)</blockquote>

Verification