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: 9540171" data-attributes="member: 42856">While I have seen a few posters do that, I think the majority here understands that the OP set the parameters for the sake of the discussion. I have no trouble accepting his definition (even if I don't agree with it, if you ask me, Good is militant Good and would include crusading people for the greater good, but they are explictely removed by the OP's rules). I don't share his definition for my campaign, but I have no problem accepting his for the sake of the discussion, and should he wishes to amend it, he's welcome to and we'll endeavour to try to imagine other reason for muscular neutrals to exist in his setting.The OP explicitely set his basis for Good and Evil. Of course it's only worthy within the context of this thread (and presumably his gameworld), but the only way to answer the question "how can I have a group of muscular neutrals not to be complete jerks in my scenario?" is to accept the parameters of his scenario. If not, it would be like entering a thread called "Let's imagine what kind of ice cream flavour exist in Star Wars" to post "Star Trek is better, and in Star Trek you can only have strawberry". It's immensely interesting, but it won't help one to run his adventure set in a Coruscant ice-cream store next Friday...I know, but I don't care about Gary Gygax here, because he didn't set the parameter of the thread, [USER=6937590]@squibbles[/USER] did. One is free to open his own thread and ask about Muscular Neutral within the framework he wishes to establish (inclunding killing and mutilation commited by Good actors refering to Gygax's defintion, or anyone's). This would be an interesting thread, and it would most probably lead to different results, but it's explicitely not the one the OP has asked for. The Venn diagram reflects, as far as I understand it, the parameters by which Good and Evil are supposed to be defined for this thought experiment by the OP, and which we must accept as part of the experiment to provide a useful answer to it. There is generally no reason to agree with the basis of a thought experiment -- people asked whether they'd pull the switch to change the course of the train can't say "nobody would build a train running right through a pavement at high speed and put random people in charge of operating the switches" -- but one needs to accept the conceit for the purpose of discussion. Within the context of this thread, clearly the objective Truth about what Good an Evil are is the definition put forward by the OP when he asked "given these parameters, give me some good motivation for Muscular Neutrals to exist/act as a balancing force and not appear as completely evil/jerks".And that's exactly what the OP did. He defined Good as "respect for life, dignity and altruism, in a way that an absolute Good victory would bring no distress to anyone, including no brainwashing" and defined evil as "killing, oppressing and harming others" in the first posts of this thread, so we could actually discuss the premise using a common definition for the purpose of his thought experiment. If we don't, we're derailing an interesting thread into a general alignment thread (of very little value).</blockquote>

Verification