Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mr Fixit" data-source="post: 6406517" data-attributes="member: 6779654">Seems to me that terms like &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; add to the confusion. Hence pemerton's problem with the notion that goodness can be flawed. How can unadulterated good be flawed? If it's flawed, it isn't good, at least not &quot;unadulteratedly&quot; so, right? However, good in D&amp;D parlance translates to charity, mercy, or selflessness (though these aren't totally appropriate either). Viewed in this fashion, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as too much mercy, or selflessness for that matter. There is some truth to that old bit of wisdom that you need to love yourself before loving another. I have trouble imagining an absolutely selfless person that's not... damaged/traumatised in a way. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who is totally and unreservedly committed to me beyond any other consideration. In fact, it would creep me out and make me think there are some deeper issues there to be resolved.So, law/order vs chaos/individualism and charity/mercy/selflessness vs malevolence/selfishness. Yeah, I can easily buy into the notion that there can be too much/too little of either and that a lawful good character, for instance, isn't necessarily &quot;gooder&quot; than a neutral good character and can in fact be less so. His goodness is tempered by his lawfulness as good aims (mercy, charity, well-being) should only in his view be achieved by lawful measures. His lawfulness is also tempered by his goodness as he believes that order and stability should only be achieved by charitable and merciful means. This view, i think, by necessity, as pemerton would say, sullies (I'd prefer tempers) paladin's dedication to either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mr Fixit, post: 6406517, member: 6779654"] Seems to me that terms like "good" and "evil" add to the confusion. Hence pemerton's problem with the notion that goodness can be flawed. How can unadulterated good be flawed? If it's flawed, it isn't good, at least not "unadulteratedly" so, right? However, good in D&D parlance translates to charity, mercy, or selflessness (though these aren't totally appropriate either). Viewed in this fashion, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as too much mercy, or selflessness for that matter. There is some truth to that old bit of wisdom that you need to love yourself before loving another. I have trouble imagining an absolutely selfless person that's not... damaged/traumatised in a way. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who is totally and unreservedly committed to me beyond any other consideration. In fact, it would creep me out and make me think there are some deeper issues there to be resolved. So, law/order vs chaos/individualism and charity/mercy/selflessness vs malevolence/selfishness. Yeah, I can easily buy into the notion that there can be too much/too little of either and that a lawful good character, for instance, isn't necessarily "gooder" than a neutral good character and can in fact be less so. His goodness is tempered by his lawfulness as good aims (mercy, charity, well-being) should only in his view be achieved by lawful measures. His lawfulness is also tempered by his goodness as he believes that order and stability should only be achieved by charitable and merciful means. This view, i think, by necessity, as pemerton would say, sullies (I'd prefer tempers) paladin's dedication to either. [/QUOTE]

Verification