Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7452331" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I thought MToF did a good job of explaining Mordenkainen's philosophy of the Balance as a sort of pessimistic utilitarianism. He tries to prevent the angels from inflicting too much damage on the devils not because he believes in an equilibrium between good and evil per se, but because in the long run, weakening the devils would allow the demons to run rampant, causing much much more damage than they already do. I see no reason for him to think that allowing the angels to win everything would be similarly disastrous. It's more like he doesn't entertain the angels winning everything as a serious possibility, and believes that the act of trying to win is more likely to fail and make things worse than it is to succeed.(MToF also does not shy away from suggesting the possibility that the philosophy of the Balance is sometimes just the rationalization of a selfish jerk.)But at what cost? You've reconceptualized "Good" as having a "similar goal" to that of "Evil". You've described this goal as preservation of the self and destruction of the other. And you've used scare quotes for "Good" and "Evil" throughout. Don't any of these things suggest to you that you might no longer actually be talking about a cosmic struggle between right and wrong?EDIT: To clarify my point, I don't think it's necessary to make any dramatic adjustments to the nature of good and evil in order to give intentional neutrality a reason to exist. In short, good has optimism, hope, faith that the world can be changed for the better. Neutrality does not, and therefore preserves the status quo.</blockquote>

Verification