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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9858294" data-attributes="member: 6790260">There are three pathways by which "True Neutral" can be made to work--but you've already excluded one of them.The first is, as you say, more or less the assertion that what we call "Good" is not actually Good; it is merely the force that, ordinarily, is most similar to Good. And, likewise, the force we call "Evil" is not actually Evil; it is merely the force that, ordinarily, is most similar to Evil.The second, as various others have said in this thread (probably numerous others, but I haven't read it closely), is something in the direction of pacifism, non-intervention, disengagement, etc. What 4e called "Unaligned", basically--specifically choosing to just...not get involved. You make no commitments and claim no moral stance, more or less. This is usually dismissed because what people want is a form of "Muscular" Neutrality--a Neutrality which actually does stand for something, even if that something is weird or dumb or whatever.The third, which I suspect will be most relevant here, is the idea that Good and Evil both need to be limited for a universe that achieves some "optimal" form. That is, a sort of detached stance where one says: "Good people are not sufficiently motivated unless they know there is Evil to oppose. Evil people act as catalysts for change, even if that change is sometimes harmful. Evil actions keep the system lean and focused, trimming the fat. Without just the right amount of Evil, Good becomes complacent. Too much Evil is of course horrible and nobody wants THAT, but things would be ever-so-slightly less effective if there were genuinely no Evil at all." More or less, this views both Good and Evil in purely instrumental terms.To a Good person, this looks like a soft form of Evil. To an Evil person, this looks like a manipulable or persuadable form of Good. A Neutral person might see that as a good thing ("a compromise should please nobody" and similar ideas are, collectively, an incredibly irritating assertion treated as though it were some kind of profound wisdom when it's outright bollocks.)More or less? You're a Good person arguing that True Neutral fence-sitting (or outright "but Evil is useful!") facilitates more Evil, and is thus Evil itself. The True Neutral person would look you dead in the eye and say, "You're already proving right the folks who say that Good turns into Evil when it has no actual Evil to fight."And to be clear, I agree with you. I think "muscular" True Neutral is an oxymoron, a logical contradiction. But that's what you'd be hearing from someone who actually adheres to this philosophy. If you want to argue with them, you have to argue on their terms to show that their position is untenable.</blockquote>

Verification