Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3971049" data-attributes="member: 710">I think it is important to differ between goals and actions. If your goals are good (freedom, food for everyone and so on), but your actions are evil (hurting or even killing people), this means you're not good - at least not purely so.Your example might be a good example where someone neutral could intervene to stop clemente from slaughtering everyone and stopping the dulnicians from provoking others - and attempting to achieve a fair compromise. Which might mean giving up the &quot;order&quot; of things, in place of a new one. Neither group's action were good (because robbing someone puts at minimum great emotional strain on a person, and we don't even have to discuss &quot;going medieval&quot; on someone).But the example of the Neutral Wizard whathisname (Mordekainen?) was very different from your example. It assumed that good was &quot;winning&quot; and everybody would turn out happy and joyful - leading Mordekainen to intervene to ensure that the evil empire would gain some ground again. That's not a sensible and - in my 21th century concepts of moral - not even good.There is also a different view on good and evil, which can also be found in Christian history (and apparently also in Starwars <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ), and being inspired from the Greek concept of &quot;ideals&quot;. Good and evil are not opposites. God equals good, and the farther away from god you are, the more evil you'll see (or be). There is no &quot;balance&quot; between good and evil. The only healthy state is pure good. ---On a related note: I've heard that discussions concentrating on politics/religions should go to the Circus Maximus. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe we should...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3971049, member: 710"] I think it is important to differ between goals and actions. If your goals are good (freedom, food for everyone and so on), but your actions are evil (hurting or even killing people), this means you're not good - at least not purely so. Your example might be a good example where someone neutral could intervene to stop clemente from slaughtering everyone and stopping the dulnicians from provoking others - and attempting to achieve a fair compromise. Which might mean giving up the "order" of things, in place of a new one. Neither group's action were good (because robbing someone puts at minimum great emotional strain on a person, and we don't even have to discuss "going medieval" on someone). But the example of the Neutral Wizard whathisname (Mordekainen?) was very different from your example. It assumed that good was "winning" and everybody would turn out happy and joyful - leading Mordekainen to intervene to ensure that the evil empire would gain some ground again. That's not a sensible and - in my 21th century concepts of moral - not even good. There is also a different view on good and evil, which can also be found in Christian history (and apparently also in Starwars :) ), and being inspired from the Greek concept of "ideals". Good and evil are not opposites. God equals good, and the farther away from god you are, the more evil you'll see (or be). There is no "balance" between good and evil. The only healthy state is pure good. --- On a related note: I've heard that discussions concentrating on politics/religions should go to the Circus Maximus. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe we should... [/QUOTE]

Verification