Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6406931" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't personally see this as untenable. There are those who find that order and cooperation and external principles bring about the well-being for the most number of people. Occasionally this may mean giving up some degree of independence, which one gladly gives up for the "greater good" if one adheres to that belief. The Most Perfect World is one where everyone voluntarily agrees to help everyone else, thus leading to a universe were all people would be willing to sacrifice their own needs for the good of society. These folks may be described as LG, believing that the well-being of people is contingent upon adhering to external order and society. There are those who believe that independence and self-determination is what truly brings about well-being. Occasionally, this may mean isolation and social disintegration and a lack of structure, all of which one would rightfully see as an infringement upon the "greater good," even if they gave some other benefit. The Most Perfect World here is one where everyone voluntarily agrees to pursue their own path to others' well-being, thus leading to a universe where people are willing to sacrifice things like massive cities for the good of the individuals that would make up those cities. These folks may be described as CG, believing that the well-being of people is contingent upon those people being allowed to express their desire for others' well being without obligation or interference. There are those who believe that true well being requires both an occasional sacrifice of individual liberty, and an occasional sacrifice of social order. Both of these are sacrifices one makes for the "greater good," in order to have the benefits both afford. The extremes are mutually exclusive, and only a blending of the two, using one or the other where appropriate, can lead to the greatest good. The Most Perfect World here is one where everyone acknowledges that both society and the individual must bend to the other, in a give-and-take relationship that ideological purity will only destroy. These folks make be described as NG, believing that both individual expression and external obligation, each in moderation, produce the greatest well-being. The LG people and the CG people both view this as an impediment to greater well-being, and the NG person believes both the LG and the CG person are being too strict in their application. Who is right? Well, they all have about equal claim to it. Just as in the real world, what brings the greatest benefit to the most people is not a settled topic (and in the real world, it cannot be). I don't see things that way at all. A CG revolutionary overthrows an LG society by civil disobedience, by mass migration, by open defiance of authority. Sure, the authority might be objectively Good -- they're concerned with the welfare of the people -- but the authority is also objectively Lawful, so it's willing to trod on the desires and freedoms of an individual to achieve a greater society. The CG character believes that this is a lesser form of good, that by forcing those people to adhere to the laws, they are not being as good as they could be by simply trusting people to pursue their individual goals for goodness. The CG character wouldn't just chafe, settling for this lesser good, they'd openly recruit, foment disquiet, and advocate for a peaceful -- though thorough -- dismantling of the government. If the government is LG, this should be intolerable hearsay and sedition, though since they are Good, simply executing and ostracizing the heretic isn't acceptable, they need to convince the heretic of the flaw in her heresy (which, of course, is only a flaw as far as the LG society is concerned). They both want people to have the greatest well-being possible, but they disagree fundamentally on what one requires to have the greatest well-being possible.And, of course, in PS, these societies are not monolithic. An LG society might achieve that by brainwashing and re-conditioning everyone who enters to believe as they do -- any nonconformity risks the purity of this Utopia. A CG society might let people starve in the streets rather than institute a tax that takes care of them, as any authority dictating behavior is a price that one pays in ultimate human well-being. An NG society might suffer from either of these problems, or they might suffer from being, say, highly exclusionary, unable to admit anyone outside, limiting the good they can create. Can any of these be said to be truly Good? Well, what do the PC's say? Do they designate that LG utopia an enemy and seek to destroy it while seeking succor in the CG society? Do they try to spread the NG society further, knowing it will collapse, believing it might be strong enough to last? The Unity of Rings dictates that one is connected to one's opposite, so all areas are rife with potential conflict that the PCs can resolve (and in so doing, decide for themselves what creates the most well-being...and be right about it). PS is interested in exploring questions like "what does it mean to be truly Good?" For instance, giving up your individual desires to further a collective goal is Lawful Good, isn't any opposition to the Harmonium's reprogramming initiative working against Good and Order? Kind of yes, but kind of also no (there's a reason they're set up as antagonists). Another example: if it is Good to fight Evil, then is can it be said to be Good to prolong and encourage a war that leaves innocents dead if it keeps evil weak? Would it be Evil to seek peace here, though you'd be ending a bloody and violent conflict that claims countless lives and souls? PS's perspective is that there's no real objectively correct answer here (objectivity being something that PS is really about challenging), the setting and the cosmology can't tell you what the right course of action is, what the truth is. The choice is the player's. Play determines what is worth saving and what must be destroyed. Players determine what it means to be "good" or "evil." And they go on to determine it for a multiverse.Which means that PS is fairly explicitly a setting of subjectivity. Those LG people who believe that order is required for the greatest well-being are right...and the CG people who believe that personal independence is required for the greatest well-being are right...and the NG people who believe that both are required for the greatest well-being are right...and in PS, the PC's get to be right, whatever they believe, and they shape the multiverse in that image.</blockquote>

Verification