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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9567921" data-attributes="member: 6796468">So they're "Good" but not "GOOD" enough to be good. And they're never "Evil" but not "EVIL" enough to be evil?That paints Neutrals as good-lite. Not as Neutral. Which defeats the fundamental purpose of recognizing neutral as existing.Neutrals have to be in the middle for it to be meaningful. If some "Neutrals" are toward the good end without being good, then roughly the same number of "Neutrals" must be toward the evil end without being evil. Which just makes neutrality a false state lumping moderately good people with moderately evil people rather than putting them with their respective groupings.A "Mostly Good" neutral character has way more in common with a good character than they do with a "Mostly Evil" neutral character. So putting them into the same group is nonsensical."Most of us actually are"... Nah, bud, that's a skill issue. Most people are good. We just also happen to be largely powerless to change the world around ourselves due to various external circumstances enforced by structures designed to keep us powerless. And a lot of us have evil in ourselves. Whether that's bigotry or simple pettiness or something less overt. Almost all of which is learned behaviors we can unlearn and avoid teaching to others.You're saying conflicting things, here. A mish-mash of things that are all connected as if they're unconnected. Some of these things are just expressions of the others, and then you try to equate a state of economically and socially enforced inaction to a matter of moral character which is just bizarre, to me.But let's not get into real world politics while we're discussing fantasy silliness.And we're back to the nonsensical "Good is actually evil!" argument. Shocking."If everyone is constantly kind, forgiving, and giving of themselves, they'll punish you for not doing those things!" The hottest of takes."Evil is actually good!" is a whole new hot take argument that is equally nonsensical.If there were no evil, good wouldn't have to prevent evil. So what would good do? Just exist. Alongside the Neutral. Being kind, forgiving, and altruistic. Good would just keep on trucking as the status quo. Rain falls, crops grow, harvests happen, people live in harmony with one another. Gifts. Marriages. Babies. Joy. Comfort.Oh, sure. Natural disasters will still happen. And the good will flood out in droves to help those affected. Accidents will still occur, and the good will flood out in droves to help those affected.What a horrible world would exist if evil didn't exist in it. Can you imagine anything more terrible than people living their lives without murder and sexual assault and pointless hatred? Ugh. How awful would that be?</blockquote>

Verification