Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6642912" data-attributes="member: 2303">Tony has many valid points here. I also think that from a narrative perspective, the ongoing debate between all the non-evil alignments is valid. A LN can claim, with some justice, that LG is short-sighted, that in the long perspective only absolute law can preserve society. Yes, some of the weak will suffer, but not nearly as many as would suffer during anarchy. And a CN could justifiably claim that any positive right is an infringement on his negative rights - the right to not be monitored, not be restricted, and not pay taxes. IMC, the question has always been how good you need to be to be of good alignment - and how evil you need to be evil. Some players insist you have to be saintly to be good, and consequently call themselves neutral. Others are more relaxed and feel that as long as you are fighting evil, you are good.Some claim even a minor amount of selfishness makes you evil, which of course means that punishing those who are evil becomes morally ambiguous - being evil is not in itself a crime. Using detect evil and punishing those who trigger it becomes evil or at the very least authoritarian. And they have a point.&nbsp; Others say that if you are evil, you got that way by evil acts, and thus just being evil justifies punishment. From a LN standpoint, this is certainly justified. And thus the discourse goes on. In my protagonist games, these are mostly discussions between sessions. In a narrative game, I suppose this discourse could be the basis of the action.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 6642912, member: 2303"] Tony has many valid points here. I also think that from a narrative perspective, the ongoing debate between all the non-evil alignments is valid. A LN can claim, with some justice, that LG is short-sighted, that in the long perspective only absolute law can preserve society. Yes, some of the weak will suffer, but not nearly as many as would suffer during anarchy. And a CN could justifiably claim that any positive right is an infringement on his negative rights - the right to not be monitored, not be restricted, and not pay taxes. IMC, the question has always been how good you need to be to be of good alignment - and how evil you need to be evil. Some players insist you have to be saintly to be good, and consequently call themselves neutral. Others are more relaxed and feel that as long as you are fighting evil, you are good. Some claim even a minor amount of selfishness makes you evil, which of course means that punishing those who are evil becomes morally ambiguous - being evil is not in itself a crime. Using detect evil and punishing those who trigger it becomes evil or at the very least authoritarian. And they have a point. Others say that if you are evil, you got that way by evil acts, and thus just being evil justifies punishment. From a LN standpoint, this is certainly justified. And thus the discourse goes on. In my protagonist games, these are mostly discussions between sessions. In a narrative game, I suppose this discourse could be the basis of the action. [/QUOTE]

Verification