Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="coyote6" data-source="post: 3970648" data-attributes="member: 1225"><p>For me, "militant neutrality" only makes sense if the two forces being balanced aren't good and evil per se, but rather the <em>forces</em> of good and the <em>forces</em> of evil (e.g., the celestials vs. the infernals). Then you can argue that if all that was around were the celestials and their mortal minions, they would begin to inflict their ever-more exacting ideas of what is "good" and "proper" on other beings (and, by D&D's alignment rules, start sliding away from "good" and into "neutral" or "evil"), and generally otherwise be bad for everyone. Then you can get into "balance" -- it isn't that you want more cruelty in the world, you just don't want the guys preaching kindness to be the only guys in power (because if nothing else, having a monopoly on power would probably be corrupting). </p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>I would prefer alignment be exactly what it says: a declaration of what side you're aligned with. Having "Alignment: Good" would mean you were literally on the side of the angels; it would not mean that you were necessarily a very good person. You might be too judgmental, prone to being doctrinaire, and/or overzealous; hell, you might be a right bastard. Alignment would just be a cosmic badge attached to your soul, effectively; it doesn't necessarily say anything about who you really are.</p><p></p><p>Then you can have more interesting characters without having to worry about whether they're really "good"; they're aligned with good because they say they are, and because the rest of "good" hasn't repudiated them. Then you can have the Priest King of Istar being Alignment: Good, and still a corrupt tyrant, and you can have Mordenkainen's militant neutrality be a sane idea.</p><p></p><p>IMO, it feels more realistic.</p><p></p><p>And it still allows you to have straightforward good vs. evil, too. Gray areas wouldn't be a requirement; you could have a world where being a vicious bastard automatically revokes your good alignment "badge".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="coyote6, post: 3970648, member: 1225"] For me, "militant neutrality" only makes sense if the two forces being balanced aren't good and evil per se, but rather the [i]forces[/i] of good and the [i]forces[/i] of evil (e.g., the celestials vs. the infernals). Then you can argue that if all that was around were the celestials and their mortal minions, they would begin to inflict their ever-more exacting ideas of what is "good" and "proper" on other beings (and, by D&D's alignment rules, start sliding away from "good" and into "neutral" or "evil"), and generally otherwise be bad for everyone. Then you can get into "balance" -- it isn't that you want more cruelty in the world, you just don't want the guys preaching kindness to be the only guys in power (because if nothing else, having a monopoly on power would probably be corrupting). *** I would prefer alignment be exactly what it says: a declaration of what side you're aligned with. Having "Alignment: Good" would mean you were literally on the side of the angels; it would not mean that you were necessarily a very good person. You might be too judgmental, prone to being doctrinaire, and/or overzealous; hell, you might be a right bastard. Alignment would just be a cosmic badge attached to your soul, effectively; it doesn't necessarily say anything about who you really are. Then you can have more interesting characters without having to worry about whether they're really "good"; they're aligned with good because they say they are, and because the rest of "good" hasn't repudiated them. Then you can have the Priest King of Istar being Alignment: Good, and still a corrupt tyrant, and you can have Mordenkainen's militant neutrality be a sane idea. IMO, it feels more realistic. And it still allows you to have straightforward good vs. evil, too. Gray areas wouldn't be a requirement; you could have a world where being a vicious bastard automatically revokes your good alignment "badge". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!
Top