Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9540005" data-attributes="member: 42856">I am not convinced that Neutral would be inherently evil with an objective Good, because the OP didn't define Evil as "not-Good". He specifically stated that Good is "altruism, respect for life, and concern for dignity of sentient being" and added "no brainwashing and no detrimental consequence for people if Good becomes an absolute victor". He then defined Evil as "harming, oppressing and killing others." They do not interesect.[ATTACH=full]390213[/ATTACH](Venn diagram made by chat-gpt).There is a lot of position outside the EVIL and GOOD objectively defined states. Including the white area (people who are neither against or for any of those conceptions and just don't care).So, you can be Not Good (ie, you have absolutely no altruism as you think that each on his own is a better outlook, or you respect life but don't ban removing it self-defense, or you think altruism and no-killing should be mandatory and ready to violate the dignity of other being by enforcing them (which is specifically outside the purview of Good, yet doesn't entail killing or harming people). You aren't evil because you don't support harming, oppressing and killing other in a general case, just for specific situations, and you don't necessarily support all three evil necessary beliefs. You're part of the mass of Neutrals, who don't check all the boxes to be either objectively Good or objectively Evil.We could even have Neutrals that would claim to be Good-er than the Good side, by pointing out the flaws of the Good side that will refuse to force the rich to share their wealth in time of need and avoid putting them into altruism-rehab to teach them against the concept of altruism because it would be oppressive to them. They'd be Neutral (can't be Good because Good doesn't brainwash people, can't be Evil because they don't kill nor harm, just oppress) and they would pretend to be the Good side while calling the Good mellow and tolerant toward Evil.Or they could just have exactly the same value sets as Good, except they have a king who rules fairly and justly like all his ancestors did. They don't depose him out of charity and tolerate his antics of saying that supreme executive power does indeed derive from a farcical aquatic ceremony instead of the mandate of the masses. It doesn't make them necessarily Evil, yet the king's oppressive act of imposing his will on his subjects without ensuring their constant approval is enough to remove him from Good-as-objectively-defined-by-the-OP.</blockquote>

Verification