Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6422718" data-attributes="member: 2067">A CE Doomguard would only burn down a house with people still inside if they were being reckless and shortsighted (that's a quick way to bring down the hammer on yourself!). A thoughtful CE Doomguard member would preserve the people inside, knowing that they will bring more destruction in their homeless poverty than their smoldering corpses would -- the family is now going to be a drain on the entire structure of the society around them! And the CG Doomguard isn't preserving their lives because she values their existence, she still believes that their lives are part of an ever-spiraling void of entropy that she is helping along. And in doing so, she's possibly abandoning her belief, rather than living up to it. Which is just to say that ultimately, the difference between Good and Evil here is kind of hair-splitting. There's a bigger difference between the stupid (recklessly destructive) and the smart (thoughtfully goal-oriented). This difference is true in many factions -- you have stupid Sensates (recklessly hedonistic) and smart Sensates (thoughtfully experience-seeking), stupid Fated (beat up people on the street in some power bid) and smart Fated (greasing the wheels behind the scene as part of the machine you're seeking to possess). These are much more a distinction between the fools and the wise than it is a distinction between the Good and the Evil. Perhaps, perhaps not. An Evil member might burn down some oppressive institution because it not only aids their primary goal, it also provides a lot of good press (people don't tend to like slave-traders or exploitative sexual operations), manipulating the public into joining their cause. A Good member might burn down an orphanage as a mercy -- better those children die as in the course of life they must than that they live a pointless life any longer than necessary. An Evil member might preserve an orphanage for the opposite reason (these brats are bringing the world closer to its ruin running lawless through the Hive than they would be dead in the ground). A Good character might preserve an institution of corruption and wickedness as an alliance of convenience because it ruins people's trust in the authority that they wield. Again, the idea is that the difference between Good and Evil isn't necessarily obvious. PC's get to answer these questions in play for their characters in good PS adventures. The setting and the rules don't provide a clear answer.  I think of the example of the Harmonium. It's clear in the setting that their campaign of brainwashing was Not Good, alignment-wise. It demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the sanctity of others' thoughts. It's less clear that this brainwashing was wrong, or what, specifically, was wrong about it. If the goal is to get everyone to believe the same thing so that everyone can live in peace and harmony, that's accomplishing this goal, and perhaps ultimate peace and tranquility for all people is not "Good," but it is still worthy and important and ultimately leading to less violent and destructive lives. It also might be that they just applied it too liberally -- what if they only applied it to the Chaotic Evil critters? Or what if they allowed creatures the freedom to choose after magically changing their alignment? At any rate, just because the activity was judged by most of the multiverse to be Not Good doesn't mean that it's not something you should support in some way as a Good PC, if you want. Live your belief. Let *it* determine your telos, regardless of what anyone else says.</blockquote>

Verification