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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9533430" data-attributes="member: 18">I know this is a variant on "refusing the premise", but I don't think 2 & 3 are necessarily meant to be the case in a "muscular neutrality" scenario. I think that assuming they are makes this a lot more complicated and contradictory. I'm not sure why you're assuming 2 & 3 are the case in a Greyhawk-esque scenario.But if we move past that, I think the only possible justification is going to be metaphysical/magical. I.e. that balance must be assured or there will be some kind of dire consequence. This obviously works a lot better with Law/Chaos, because those have obviously bad consequences if taken to extremes.Without a mystical/metaphysical/magical element, but with Good/Evil you have to get judge-y and into nonsense and stereotypes I think. You have to start making implausible/obviously-wrong claims like "If everyone is good and no-one is fighting or harming others, and everyone has enough, there's no creativity and no meaning!" or inch-deep cod-philosophical drivel like "there is no light without shadow!", which is like, obviously weird nonsense, but absolutely the kind of thing you routinely found in 1980s fantasy (especially in TTRPGs).So yeah it's going to have to be dire metaphysical consequences, like if everyone is too good, the Good gods will become too powerful and end the world or or something. Like maybe there's a cosmic game and points are being scored, and if either side gets the max score, the world ends and starts anew, which pleases the implacable and incomprehensible gods somehow but destroys the world.</blockquote>

Verification