Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9539888" data-attributes="member: 42856">I don't think people have to agree on the list. It's the GM's task to create and run the world, and there is no reason that Good should be objectively defined the same way in several worlds. First, because there is no necessary relationship between Alignment-Good and real life Good (like we discussed in the conquistador situation), so in-universe consequences are much different, leading to a more alien morality being sustainable, second because it's a Good god mandate, so noone in universe has to agree. It's either do as the Good gods say, or you aren't Good. If you don't like Corellon cursing the dark elves, too bad. He's Good, and if you want to be objectively Good, you must accept that it's the most LG move possible. You can't discuss it, it would make you a CG heretic. God-enforced morality would be closer to a set of laws than a morality system. You don't agree that Zeus was Good for killing his dad? Go to metaphysical Antarctica.The OP gave the exact definition. I don't see people arguing against them. The goal of the thread, as I see it, is to find reasons for a group to be Muscular Neutral (ie, oppose both the utmost victories of Good and Evil, as he defined) within the framework of the definition he gave (and which applies only to his campaign world).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9539888, member: 42856"] I don't think people have to agree on the list. It's the GM's task to create and run the world, and there is no reason that Good should be objectively defined the same way in several worlds. First, because there is no necessary relationship between Alignment-Good and real life Good (like we discussed in the conquistador situation), so in-universe consequences are much different, leading to a more alien morality being sustainable, second because it's a Good god mandate, so noone in universe has to agree. It's either do as the Good gods say, or you aren't Good. If you don't like Corellon cursing the dark elves, too bad. He's Good, and if you want to be objectively Good, you must accept that it's the most LG move possible. You can't discuss it, it would make you a CG heretic. God-enforced morality would be closer to a set of laws than a morality system. You don't agree that Zeus was Good for killing his dad? Go to metaphysical Antarctica. The OP gave the exact definition. I don't see people arguing against them. The goal of the thread, as I see it, is to find reasons for a group to be Muscular Neutral (ie, oppose both the utmost victories of Good and Evil, as he defined) within the framework of the definition he gave (and which applies only to his campaign world). [/QUOTE]

Verification