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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9534188" data-attributes="member: 42856">Yup, that's why I meant when I say that Evil makes the same promises of "we'll let you pursue your own end if you help us and we achieve complete victory". The Evil kingdoms are as justified in their behaviour, even if it's by thinking that "Might makeks Right" and will offer to reward their ally with peace and being allowed to keep doing their Neutral things without problem, while Good will say "We are fighting Evil, but don't worry, since you are not Evil, you have no harmful consequence to fear from our victory" and will offer to reward their ally with peace and being allowed to keep doing their Neutral things without problem. Why should Neutrals trust either of them? Caution is the mother of safety.On the other hand, this can explain more easily an attitude of not caring about the fight between Evil and Good, but muscular neutral needs by definition to get a reason to be actively involved, which means siding with the loser (either Good or Evil) as needed.So we need to add to this entirely valid justification of "do not trust anyone currently waging a war, they might have an agenda while claiming to be the right side" with an interest into not having one side winning:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">fear of the consequences of one side being wiped (they don't trust Good to stay Good even if they promise to stay Good, or they just can't be sure Good isn't just Evil masquerading as Good for the purpose of enlisting their help, or even if they trust Good to stay Good, they notice that the Good victory, as defined for the purpose of this thread, can't prevent an individual to be individually evil as long as he doesn't break the rules, so an evil leader could theoretically be elected leader by masquerading as Good until he has the power to subvert the system into attacking the neutral country by falsely pretending it is an evil country, so they don't want to take the risk)...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">interest into keeping both sides busy and at war (more security, less need to actually spend resources into protecting from their neighbours if they are both in no capacity to open another front...)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">simply wanting to have the opportunity to choose to do some evil-as-defined-by-the-OP actions while not being actually 100% evil, like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">oppressing others for a good cause like forcing rich people to share their wealth so poor people don't starve even if the rich don't happen to be altruistic enough to do it by themselves,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">killing criminals if they either believe in the death penalty or don't have the means to contain, say, a planeshifting lich in prison for a "life" that would last eternally and see killing people as necessary evil in this case].</li> </ul></li> </ul>Those are to me entirely valid reason to support the losing side, even if it is Evil. Especially if Evil isn't ridiculously Evil-for-the-sake-of-Evil "I'll torture my allies' babies for fun" but just a side that ascribe little value to life and individual freedom and think that strength, tradition or religion is a valid basis for forming a government imposing its will on its subjects (so they are fully checking the "oppressing other", "killing" and "harming" Evil-defining list).</blockquote>

Verification