Bill Bisco wrote:Neutral is just the degree between Lawful and Chaotic. Consider it a 45 degree angle, accepts and follows codes about half as much as a Lawful person would and breaks codes and is a free-r spirit about half as much as a Chaotic person would.
FrankTrollman wrote:
That's stupid and you should feel stupid. You can't break codes more or less. You either stick to them or you don't. That's what codes are.
You can try to define codes as absolutes, but I feel they are better defined as a continuum.
For Example: Stealing. Stealing a guy's sandwich is bad. Stealing a guy's wallet is worse. Stealing a guy's laptop is worse than that. Stealing a guy's bank account is worse than that.
For Example: Physically Harming Others. Punching a guy is one thing. Stabbing him is worse, and outright killing him is even worse!
So yes, you can break the codes of stealing or harming others more or less.
Frank Trollman wrote:You don't spend more less of your day murdering innocent people, you either do it or you do not do it. If someone spent half as much of their day raping people you wouldn't consider them to be ambiguous on the issue of rape, nor would you consider them a possible ally in your ant-rape agenda. They frankly wouldn't look damn bit different to you than someone who spent twice as much of their time raping. Frankly, even a very dedicated rapist is going to spend very little of their actual time raping people.
There is a degree of difference between people who "rape all the time" and people who "rape some of the time" although that degree of difference isn't particularly meaningful or interesting (in my opinion).
I argue that there is a significant difference for example in a person who took advantage of someone once in their life and who did not later in their life and one who has done it multiple times in their life and is still continuing to do so. So I do consider the # of instances of such code breaks as significant.
By the way my comments were mainly aimed at Lawful vs. Chaotic, your comments are aimed at Evil vs. Good and being Neutral which is another discussion.
Frank wrote:There are different moral and philosophical systems. But they aren't on a fucking sliding scale. There are not points that are between one system and another system. Different people consider different things acceptable and praiseworthy, and they are just different. Some systems consider it a moral problem for dudes to sleep with other dudes or for people to eat dogs. Other systems don't have a problem with that stuff. And the grab bag of different things you could take offense to or not makes any moral compass that shares some things in common with two different opposing philosophies to very likely share very little with another that shares things in common with the same philosophies.
So in short, if "Chaotic Good" is a philosophy and "Lawful Good" is another philosophy, then you fucking can't just say that "Neutral Good" is a philosophy that happens to take some things from CG and some things from LG. Because that's a statement that describes an infinite number of philosophies, the vast majority of which share no more in common with each other than they do with LG or CG.
-Username17
I disagree, I think you absolutely can put actions and people on a sliding scale as I demonstrated in the continuum of stealing and hurting others above.
I mean this happens in real life. Somehow a certain set of beliefs and ideas got labeled as Liberal and another set of ideas and beliefs got labeled as Conservative. And, you can (and people do) place others on a scale testing their 'Liberalness' and their 'Conservativeness.' The more ideas that person agrees with from the Liberal List, slides that person on the scale towards 100% Liberal and likewise the more ideas that person agrees with from the Conservative List, slides that person on the scale towards 100% Conservative.
And you most certainly can call a person on that list in the middle of that scale a Moderate (or Neutral) who shares an equal # of ideas from the Liberal and Conservative List.
And indeed, you could have two 'moderates' who share opposite beliefs, and that's ok.
Now, the lists of Liberal and Conservative, are arbitrary, but you most certainly can make a scale of where people fall on it.
I used a political example, but I really don't want to get into politics, so please let's not go on a tangent on that subject.
