Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dogbrain" data-source="post: 1558452" data-attributes="member: 14980">It can often come down to how totalitarian Lawful Good is in a campaign.&nbsp; If it's a &quot;white hat in a Western&quot; sort of alignment, then LG won't just go out obliterating &quot;Evil&quot; just because it's &quot;Evil&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;Sorry, mister, but until we actually get more than rumor, we can't just go in a hootin' and a hollerin' and drag out old Judge Johnson from his ranch and string him up. I've been to talk to him, but he's got a good reason for everything that's happened in these parts.&nbsp; The law says we can't just hang a man on suspicion, even when he's a man like Judge Johnson.&nbsp; It breaks my heart what happened to your boy, and maybe a man like Judge Johnson deserves to dance on air, but what about the next time?&nbsp; Can we always be so sure when we take a man's life?&nbsp; Sometimes, for the greater good, we just have to swallow hard and do what we can.&quot;&nbsp; In that setting, it would actually be Chaotic Good that would be more prone to be in the hardcore &quot;slay all evil wherever it may be found&quot; business.&nbsp; Indeed, in such a setting, a &quot;holy warrior&quot; who goes out a whompin' and a hackin', laying waste to all Evil, wheresoever it may be found, would better be modeled as a Chaotic Good character class.&nbsp; This sort of campaign would be good for exploring the two famous Nietschiean dicta:Whomsoever fights monsters must take care that he does not himself become a monster.When you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back at you.However, since we're talking about playing a game, complex moral issues might not necessarily be what the players want.&nbsp; Maybe they want to take a vacation from moral ambiguity instead of exploring it.&nbsp; Maybe they would enjoy a much simpler definition of sides.&nbsp; This is what I call a &quot;totalitarian&quot; version of &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot;.&nbsp; The two are starkly painted, definitely delineated, with no room made nor even metaphysically possible between the them.&nbsp; This, of course, lacks all verissimilitude.&nbsp; However, there is no necessity that &quot;lacking moral verissimilitude&quot; and &quot;bad setting&quot; must be identical.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dogbrain, post: 1558452, member: 14980"] It can often come down to how totalitarian Lawful Good is in a campaign. If it's a "white hat in a Western" sort of alignment, then LG won't just go out obliterating "Evil" just because it's "Evil". "Sorry, mister, but until we actually get more than rumor, we can't just go in a hootin' and a hollerin' and drag out old Judge Johnson from his ranch and string him up. I've been to talk to him, but he's got a good reason for everything that's happened in these parts. The law says we can't just hang a man on suspicion, even when he's a man like Judge Johnson. It breaks my heart what happened to your boy, and maybe a man like Judge Johnson deserves to dance on air, but what about the next time? Can we always be so sure when we take a man's life? Sometimes, for the greater good, we just have to swallow hard and do what we can." In that setting, it would actually be Chaotic Good that would be more prone to be in the hardcore "slay all evil wherever it may be found" business. Indeed, in such a setting, a "holy warrior" who goes out a whompin' and a hackin', laying waste to all Evil, wheresoever it may be found, would better be modeled as a Chaotic Good character class. This sort of campaign would be good for exploring the two famous Nietschiean dicta: Whomsoever fights monsters must take care that he does not himself become a monster. When you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back at you. However, since we're talking about playing a game, complex moral issues might not necessarily be what the players want. Maybe they want to take a vacation from moral ambiguity instead of exploring it. Maybe they would enjoy a much simpler definition of sides. This is what I call a "totalitarian" version of "good" and "evil". The two are starkly painted, definitely delineated, with no room made nor even metaphysically possible between the them. This, of course, lacks all verissimilitude. However, there is no necessity that "lacking moral verissimilitude" and "bad setting" must be identical. [/QUOTE]

Verification