Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6615503" data-attributes="member: 42582">If you're going to use 9-point alignment, I think the 1st ed AD&D descriptions of good and evil (supplemented by the generally compatible 3E) descriptions work OK.Good means upholds the rights, dignity and welfare of others. Respect for beauty is also often thought to be an aspect of goodness.Evil means that purpose is the determinant - ie the character does not treat others, and the welfare of others, as any sort of constraint on the pursuit of desire. Nor does s/he regard beauty as any sort of constraint.Extreme cases of goodness will be those who make substantial sacrifices in pursuit of the welfare of others. But someone who does not make substantial sacrifices, but nevertheless respects and upholds the wellbeing of others, is good.Extreme cases of evil will be those who go out of their way to oppress or destroy other people (eg gnolls, demons, mustache-twirling villains). But someone who is not actively vicious, but who nevertheless pursues his/her own interests without regard for others, is evil.When it comes to neutrality, I tend to prefer the Gygaxian approach. Lawful neutrals fetishise order even when it conflicts with the wellbeing of others; chaotic neutrals fetishise choice, and freedom from constraint, even when it does not further the wellbeing of others. True neutrals are relatively unusual, and committed to natural and cosmic harmony.The latter-day idea of neutrality as a sort of border-zone between good and evil I don't find very coherent. For instance, a person who thinks that social order is the best way to realise widespread welfare, but who occasionally cheats on his/her taxes, is still LG. S/he's just not as admirable as a paladin who never cheats on taxes. And if, despite those convictions, s/he always cheats on taxes, always finds a reason to tell the beggars to go elsewhere for alms, always evicts squatters relying on the thought that it's "someone else's" job to find them somewhere to live - then s/he's probably LE but moderately self-deluded.In otherwords, LN isn't about being a little-bit LG and a little-bit LE; it's its own thing, a type of fetishisation of order. Mutatis mutandis for CN.</blockquote>

Verification