Is there even a point to the eternal war between good and evil in D&D? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is there even a point to the eternal war between good and evil in D&D? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
celestialkin
11-29-07, 12:22 AM I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module.

From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist.

So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side? Why become a heroic paladin who swears to suppress all evil in the world, or a blackguard devoted to killing all good things, if it is already decided that neither side will ever succeed? Why save a utopian town/city/nation/race from being destroyed by an army of evil monsters, if you know it is just gonna happen eventually. Why do the gods themselves, who are more aware of this than anyone, choose to continue this endless pointless battle, when they can just lay back, relax, and continue to live for eternity instead of eventually getting killed over a war they know they could never win?

Also, how could I reflect this epiphany in my charterers? And if I do, would they lose any reason to be on an adventure?

Thanks in advance for any opinions or thoughts on this.
Thegans
11-29-07, 12:35 AM Depending on what books you go by their really isn't even a war yet. If you go be the Fiendish Codex's things are still focused on the war between law and chaos with good and evil just starting.

You have the Blood War between the fiends.
The sladdi and the several races in mechus likely fighting each other.
The celestials and fiends fighting each other.
The celestials having tons of arguments about which allignment is better lawful good and chaotic good with the guardianals likely getting annoyed.
Then you have the Rilimini that basically go "OK we help the fiends today and once the celestials get killed enough we stab them in the back and move on to the next item on the list."

Really the main point is thatthe Rimini are apparently really good at keeping one side from winning. However in Forgotten Realms they do have an overdiety called Ao that wants to keep the alignments balanced but he also had a restriction placed on the gods that they need worshipers to keep their power.

As for adventuring perhaps they could just continue it for fun and profit. That or find and fight things that are a thread to everyone like maybe the cultists of Tharizdun.
navar100
11-29-07, 02:17 AM Just ignore the flavor text. For some random game, the war between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, The Blood War, doesn't mean anything. They might not even be happening. For a paladin, cleric of a good deity, and laymen good people, being Good is just the Right thing to do. Evil people don't commit evil for Evil's sake. They are selfish and just take what they want - whether it be wealth, fame, power, a combination, or whatever. Life just is. What you do with it is what matters.
Orchomenos
11-29-07, 09:22 AM They continue because it's their nature. Let's suppose an innocent belts merchant. An evil brigand appears and begin beating him. Would everyone just sit and watch, knowing that if they stop this evil brigand, another one will pop up someday and resume the beating of this innocent belts merchant? Of course not, by his nature, any good guy will at least protest or call the guards, if he's not able to smite the evil brigand himself! And knowing that, why would the evil brigand simply overtake the beating to start? Because it's the way he knows to live, it's his nature.
Zousha_Omenohu
11-29-07, 09:50 AM I don't think it's wise to associate humanoid actions and motivations with outsider ones. Celestials are practically made of goodness and vice versa with the fiends, but humanoids are guided by their thoughts and feelings. This brigand may be beating up the belts merchant because he's bored, or he may be mugging him to feed his starving kid. While you are right in saying that most people would help the merchant, that's not because humanoids are creatures of alignment. That's because it's common sense.
The Ubbergeek
11-29-07, 03:34 PM Be local, think local... You can't win The Great War... But perhaps you can at least save and hold a place, bring hope somewhere.
Shemeska the Marauder
11-29-07, 11:21 PM I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module.

From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist.

That's mostly something your DM and/or players have in that campaign. Overgods don't seem to have much of any known role in the conflicts between the races that personify the alignments.

While the abstract alignments and the beings that personify them are roughly in balance at the moment, and appear (by all that's known about that time) to have likewise existed in a tenuous balance when the planes first formed, there's no underlying law or being enforcing that status quo. Good or Evil or Law or Chaos or Neutrality or some combination thereof might ultimately shift the multiverse towards their chosen pole of ethics and morality. Fighting for what you believe to be the correct alignment in that case makes your actions hold meaning, and even in the midst of numbers that might transcend mortal comprehension, anyone could tilt the whole conflict one way or the other.

Now as for the fate of the planes in this conflict between the alignments: Some Rilmani (exemplars of true neutrality) believe that if the alignments ever became unbalanced, they would cease to be, and the multiverse would suffer some terrible fate. That's not a view that's necessarily shared by the other true outsider races.
kintire
11-30-07, 05:53 AM From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist.

Shemeska is right. This is the view of the Balance version of true Neutrality. It isn't necessarily true. Also, the overdeities and the multiverse don't meddle in the struggle. So, for example Ao doesn't deny Bane deityhood for being evil, but there is no reason to suppose that he would prevent his defeat either.
1 ton ghost
11-30-07, 12:36 PM ...quite simply, it's because the game mechanics of alignment are a system of dynamic opposites and exist to compliment/antagonize each other...and simplify an overly beleaguered code of ethics and social mores. i hate the system very much as it's terribly unrealistic and pigeonholes otherwise good RP in many respects, but it's the only one we got. like my otherwise crap govt., it's still the best game in town...for now.
plus, you're trying to think on a god-like level which is a major no no. nothing offends immortal badass types like the arrogance and presumption of mortals that think they got it all figured out and begin prophecy and prosyletizing under their own conclusions.
it's just a simple plot device used to further the fairly easy play of a game, nothing more. it's been done in a million sci-fi texts/movies/etc.
this could go on all day. don't call on wolves in midwinter.
Ikyotojin
11-30-07, 04:40 PM I have a completely different outlook on the whole thing. In the campaign I've had running for over 20 years, there is a cycle that never ends. The rise of magic is the first age and anyone who becomes uber level becomes the legends for the next age which is the decline of magic and the rise of one of the races to dominance. Which race depends on the actions taken in the first age. Then there is the end of magic and rise of science - steam punk through scifi. Then comes the re-awakening of magic where the old gods flex their muscles again and the whole thing ends in a big "end all" war that leads to an age of wildness and savagery.

The effects of one age determine the setting for the next. If the forces of evil win the first age, then the rise of the next is bleak and filled with strife. If good wins that then the rise of the age of science is like Star Trek:TNG at first.

One thing leads to another and the struggle is to see not who wins, but who rules the next age and for how long.
CryoSilver
12-01-07, 03:33 AM One could, in fact, derive an incredibly cool setting or campaign based on one alignment turning the tide of the eternal war. The PCs could either join that side, join the opposition, or join the rilmani.
Bobfred21
12-02-07, 07:12 PM In such a setting the common sense response of a human being to stop the brigand from beating the belt merchant holds no salt. There's a finite amount of goodness in the world - thus, in stopping the brigand, something bad is just going to happen elsewhere as a result. It makes litterally no difference because of an enforced balance. Which is the case in Faerun as I understand it, though it may be the case there there is -some flexibility- in terms of making a difference.
kintire
12-04-07, 11:28 AM It makes litterally no difference because of an enforced balance. Which is the case in Faerun as I understand it, though it may be the case there there is -some flexibility- in terms of making a difference.

There is no enforced balance between Good and Evil in Faerun. There is certainly no balance of "forces" as you suggest, in fact much less so than in most other settings. Faerun is musch less concerned with Good and Evil as active forces in their own right, and much more with deities pursuing specific goals.
Kiioro
12-05-07, 06:31 PM Be local, think local... You can't win The Great War... But perhaps you can at least save and hold a place, bring hope somewhere.

Exactly, if you're human, don't go wondering about what gods do -for now. Just think about all the groupies an adventurer gets. If you're about to ascend to godhood, well, that's another thing. Remember that there are completely evil planes and deities, just as there are completely good planes and deities.

It's probably the "as long as there is light, there'll be shadows; but without shadows, you couldn't distinguish light" kind of thing. As long as there is good, someone will be sick of it and think about him/herself and start being evil. As long as there is evil, someone will be sick of it and think about the future and start being good.
sciborg3
12-05-07, 07:22 PM i don't understand this "without evil, there can be no good" idea. the triumph of good (or evil) is making people think a certain way, behave a certain way. It seems easy enough for Good to exist without Evil - getting to that point is another matter entirely.
JulesCARV
12-05-07, 07:23 PM Personally, I'd rule that the balance of good and evil is a contingent fact about the contemporary world in D&D that is mistaken by many (but not all) clergy, planar scholars, etc, as a necessary law of the cosmos.
boozerker
12-06-07, 05:50 PM I don't think it's wise to associate humanoid actions and motivations with outsider ones.
And on that note, humans may be just misintrepeting the gods' motives or the "known" history of gods could be wrong -- it's not truly a war as humanoids are used to thinking. Maybe it's too alien for mortals to understand or even consider.

IOne thing leads to another and the struggle is to see not who wins, but who rules the next age and for how long.
Hmm, interesting take you have.
Amon_V
12-06-07, 07:49 PM Absolutely.

Nothing forces the multiverse to adhere to a 50/50 split of good and evil--that's just the results of the where things are as a whole.

Shifting the Multiverse to 60 Good/40 Evil would mean an era of great prosperity and happiness, where life seems fuller and more complete, and pain and suffering are smaller and more easily overcome.

The opposite is also significant--60 Evil/40 Good would mean a world of darkness, pain and suffering. All existence would be levied a silent tax across the board, as war, violence, plague and death itself become more prevalent.

A state of Annihilation is impossible (100 Good, 0 Evil)--because without evil, good becomes omnipresent and any conflict ends. D&D can not do this because the result would mean that nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever again. Which is a cool way for the game to end, but the D&D game can not run at a level of 'Your friend wants to bake some cookies, but he doesn't have any chocolate chips--therefore your heroic quest is to find them'.

The Force of Good fights for the day that rescuing cats from trees and fighting obesity are its greatest problems. But this is in the far distant future, if it is even possible.

The point to the war, at least for a mortal point of view, is that the numbers can change--favorably or unfavorably. Pushing Evil down 1 point is an epic victory for humanity, and a worthy goal of a campaign.
sciborg3
12-07-07, 11:42 PM but the D&D game can not run at a level of 'Your friend wants to bake some cookies, but he doesn't have any chocolate chips--therefore your heroic quest is to find them'.

Not without the ELH it can't. ;)
JimProfit
12-07-07, 11:59 PM I think red and blue said it best.

Lawful Good: DIE! BURN IN HELL AND DIE!

Lawful Evil: I hope you get raped! Twice! Maybe then you'd think differantly!

Chaotic Evil: I voted for Nader! I hate everybody!

Chaotic Good: Politics make me soooo horny!
Sinfire Titan
12-08-07, 12:30 AM I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module.

From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist.

So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side? Why become a heroic paladin who swears to suppress all evil in the world, or a blackguard devoted to killing all good things, if it is already decided that neither side will ever succeed? Why save a utopian town/city/nation/race from being destroyed by an army of evil monsters, if you know it is just gonna happen eventually. Why do the gods themselves, who are more aware of this than anyone, choose to continue this endless pointless battle, when they can just lay back, relax, and continue to live for eternity instead of eventually getting killed over a war they know they could never win?

Also, how could I reflect this epiphany in my charterers? And if I do, would they lose any reason to be on an adventure?

Thanks in advance for any opinions or thoughts on this.

The end-all, be-all answer: Because someone has to do ALL of the dirty work...
Furryhowler
12-09-07, 02:59 AM So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side?

OOC: Because its a game :P ;)

IC: Because the character may not believe that balance is inevitable

:)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
celestialkin 11-29-07, 12:22 AM	I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module. From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist. So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side? Why become a heroic paladin who swears to suppress all evil in the world, or a blackguard devoted to killing all good things, if it is already decided that neither side will ever succeed? Why save a utopian town/city/nation/race from being destroyed by an army of evil monsters, if you know it is just gonna happen eventually. Why do the gods themselves, who are more aware of this than anyone, choose to continue this endless pointless battle, when they can just lay back, relax, and continue to live for eternity instead of eventually getting killed over a war they know they could never win? Also, how could I reflect this epiphany in my charterers? And if I do, would they lose any reason to be on an adventure? Thanks in advance for any opinions or thoughts on this.
Thegans 11-29-07, 12:35 AM	Depending on what books you go by their really isn't even a war yet. If you go be the Fiendish Codex's things are still focused on the war between law and chaos with good and evil just starting. You have the Blood War between the fiends. The sladdi and the several races in mechus likely fighting each other. The celestials and fiends fighting each other. The celestials having tons of arguments about which allignment is better lawful good and chaotic good with the guardianals likely getting annoyed. Then you have the Rilimini that basically go "OK we help the fiends today and once the celestials get killed enough we stab them in the back and move on to the next item on the list." Really the main point is thatthe Rimini are apparently really good at keeping one side from winning. However in Forgotten Realms they do have an overdiety called Ao that wants to keep the alignments balanced but he also had a restriction placed on the gods that they need worshipers to keep their power. As for adventuring perhaps they could just continue it for fun and profit. That or find and fight things that are a thread to everyone like maybe the cultists of Tharizdun.
navar100 11-29-07, 02:17 AM	Just ignore the flavor text. For some random game, the war between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, The Blood War, doesn't mean anything. They might not even be happening. For a paladin, cleric of a good deity, and laymen good people, being Good is just the Right thing to do. Evil people don't commit evil for Evil's sake. They are selfish and just take what they want - whether it be wealth, fame, power, a combination, or whatever. Life just is. What you do with it is what matters.
Orchomenos 11-29-07, 09:22 AM	They continue because it's their nature. Let's suppose an innocent belts merchant. An evil brigand appears and begin beating him. Would everyone just sit and watch, knowing that if they stop this evil brigand, another one will pop up someday and resume the beating of this innocent belts merchant? Of course not, by his nature, any good guy will at least protest or call the guards, if he's not able to smite the evil brigand himself! And knowing that, why would the evil brigand simply overtake the beating to start? Because it's the way he knows to live, it's his nature.
Zousha_Omenohu 11-29-07, 09:50 AM	I don't think it's wise to associate humanoid actions and motivations with outsider ones. Celestials are practically made of goodness and vice versa with the fiends, but humanoids are guided by their thoughts and feelings. This brigand may be beating up the belts merchant because he's bored, or he may be mugging him to feed his starving kid. While you are right in saying that most people would help the merchant, that's not because humanoids are creatures of alignment. That's because it's common sense.
The Ubbergeek 11-29-07, 03:34 PM	Be local, think local... You can't win The Great War... But perhaps you can at least save and hold a place, bring hope somewhere.
Shemeska the Marauder 11-29-07, 11:21 PM	I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module. From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist. That's mostly something your DM and/or players have in that campaign. Overgods don't seem to have much of any known role in the conflicts between the races that personify the alignments. While the abstract alignments and the beings that personify them are roughly in balance at the moment, and appear (by all that's known about that time) to have likewise existed in a tenuous balance when the planes first formed, there's no underlying law or being enforcing that status quo. Good or Evil or Law or Chaos or Neutrality or some combination thereof might ultimately shift the multiverse towards their chosen pole of ethics and morality. Fighting for what you believe to be the correct alignment in that case makes your actions hold meaning, and even in the midst of numbers that might transcend mortal comprehension, anyone could tilt the whole conflict one way or the other. Now as for the fate of the planes in this conflict between the alignments: Some Rilmani (exemplars of true neutrality) believe that if the alignments ever became unbalanced, they would cease to be, and the multiverse would suffer some terrible fate. That's not a view that's necessarily shared by the other true outsider races.
kintire 11-30-07, 05:53 AM	From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist. Shemeska is right. This is the view of the Balance version of true Neutrality. It isn't necessarily true. Also, the overdeities and the multiverse don't meddle in the struggle. So, for example Ao doesn't deny Bane deityhood for being evil, but there is no reason to suppose that he would prevent his defeat either.
1 ton ghost 11-30-07, 12:36 PM	...quite simply, it's because the game mechanics of alignment are a system of dynamic opposites and exist to compliment/antagonize each other...and simplify an overly beleaguered code of ethics and social mores. i hate the system very much as it's terribly unrealistic and pigeonholes otherwise good RP in many respects, but it's the only one we got. like my otherwise crap govt., it's still the best game in town...for now. plus, you're trying to think on a god-like level which is a major no no. nothing offends immortal badass types like the arrogance and presumption of mortals that think they got it all figured out and begin prophecy and prosyletizing under their own conclusions. it's just a simple plot device used to further the fairly easy play of a game, nothing more. it's been done in a million sci-fi texts/movies/etc. this could go on all day. don't call on wolves in midwinter.
Ikyotojin 11-30-07, 04:40 PM	I have a completely different outlook on the whole thing. In the campaign I've had running for over 20 years, there is a cycle that never ends. The rise of magic is the first age and anyone who becomes uber level becomes the legends for the next age which is the decline of magic and the rise of one of the races to dominance. Which race depends on the actions taken in the first age. Then there is the end of magic and rise of science - steam punk through scifi. Then comes the re-awakening of magic where the old gods flex their muscles again and the whole thing ends in a big "end all" war that leads to an age of wildness and savagery. The effects of one age determine the setting for the next. If the forces of evil win the first age, then the rise of the next is bleak and filled with strife. If good wins that then the rise of the age of science is like Star Trek:TNG at first. One thing leads to another and the struggle is to see not who wins, but who rules the next age and for how long.
CryoSilver 12-01-07, 03:33 AM	One could, in fact, derive an incredibly cool setting or campaign based on one alignment turning the tide of the eternal war. The PCs could either join that side, join the opposition, or join the rilmani.
Bobfred21 12-02-07, 07:12 PM	In such a setting the common sense response of a human being to stop the brigand from beating the belt merchant holds no salt. There's a finite amount of goodness in the world - thus, in stopping the brigand, something bad is just going to happen elsewhere as a result. It makes litterally no difference because of an enforced balance. Which is the case in Faerun as I understand it, though it may be the case there there is -some flexibility- in terms of making a difference.
kintire 12-04-07, 11:28 AM	It makes litterally no difference because of an enforced balance. Which is the case in Faerun as I understand it, though it may be the case there there is -some flexibility- in terms of making a difference. There is no enforced balance between Good and Evil in Faerun. There is certainly no balance of "forces" as you suggest, in fact much less so than in most other settings. Faerun is musch less concerned with Good and Evil as active forces in their own right, and much more with deities pursuing specific goals.
Kiioro 12-05-07, 06:31 PM	Be local, think local... You can't win The Great War... But perhaps you can at least save and hold a place, bring hope somewhere. Exactly, if you're human, don't go wondering about what gods do -for now. Just think about all the groupies an adventurer gets. If you're about to ascend to godhood, well, that's another thing. Remember that there are completely evil planes and deities, just as there are completely good planes and deities. It's probably the "as long as there is light, there'll be shadows; but without shadows, you couldn't distinguish light" kind of thing. As long as there is good, someone will be sick of it and think about him/herself and start being evil. As long as there is evil, someone will be sick of it and think about the future and start being good.
sciborg3 12-05-07, 07:22 PM	i don't understand this "without evil, there can be no good" idea. the triumph of good (or evil) is making people think a certain way, behave a certain way. It seems easy enough for Good to exist without Evil - getting to that point is another matter entirely.
JulesCARV 12-05-07, 07:23 PM	Personally, I'd rule that the balance of good and evil is a contingent fact about the contemporary world in D&D that is mistaken by many (but not all) clergy, planar scholars, etc, as a necessary law of the cosmos.
boozerker 12-06-07, 05:50 PM	I don't think it's wise to associate humanoid actions and motivations with outsider ones. And on that note, humans may be just misintrepeting the gods' motives or the "known" history of gods could be wrong -- it's not truly a war as humanoids are used to thinking. Maybe it's too alien for mortals to understand or even consider. IOne thing leads to another and the struggle is to see not who wins, but who rules the next age and for how long. Hmm, interesting take you have.
Amon_V 12-06-07, 07:49 PM	Absolutely. Nothing forces the multiverse to adhere to a 50/50 split of good and evil--that's just the results of the where things are as a whole. Shifting the Multiverse to 60 Good/40 Evil would mean an era of great prosperity and happiness, where life seems fuller and more complete, and pain and suffering are smaller and more easily overcome. The opposite is also significant--60 Evil/40 Good would mean a world of darkness, pain and suffering. All existence would be levied a silent tax across the board, as war, violence, plague and death itself become more prevalent. A state of Annihilation is impossible (100 Good, 0 Evil)--because without evil, good becomes omnipresent and any conflict ends. D&D can not do this because the result would mean that nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever again. Which is a cool way for the game to end, but the D&D game can not run at a level of 'Your friend wants to bake some cookies, but he doesn't have any chocolate chips--therefore your heroic quest is to find them'. The Force of Good fights for the day that rescuing cats from trees and fighting obesity are its greatest problems. But this is in the far distant future, if it is even possible. The point to the war, at least for a mortal point of view, is that the numbers can change--favorably or unfavorably. Pushing Evil down 1 point is an epic victory for humanity, and a worthy goal of a campaign.
sciborg3 12-07-07, 11:42 PM	but the D&D game can not run at a level of 'Your friend wants to bake some cookies, but he doesn't have any chocolate chips--therefore your heroic quest is to find them'. Not without the ELH it can't. ;)
JimProfit 12-07-07, 11:59 PM	I think red and blue said it best. Lawful Good: DIE! BURN IN HELL AND DIE! Lawful Evil: I hope you get raped! Twice! Maybe then you'd think differantly! Chaotic Evil: I voted for Nader! I hate everybody! Chaotic Good: Politics make me soooo horny!
Sinfire Titan 12-08-07, 12:30 AM	I have been wondering this since I played the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits module. From what I have been told by my DM and party members, the overdeities, and I believe the multiverse itself, is constantly keeping both evil and good in check so no side will ever win. If either good or evil starts winning the eternal struggle, the universe and the overdeities will stop them in their tracks. From what I am told, if either side were to win then the multiverse itself would fall apart and cease to exist. So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side? Why become a heroic paladin who swears to suppress all evil in the world, or a blackguard devoted to killing all good things, if it is already decided that neither side will ever succeed? Why save a utopian town/city/nation/race from being destroyed by an army of evil monsters, if you know it is just gonna happen eventually. Why do the gods themselves, who are more aware of this than anyone, choose to continue this endless pointless battle, when they can just lay back, relax, and continue to live for eternity instead of eventually getting killed over a war they know they could never win? Also, how could I reflect this epiphany in my charterers? And if I do, would they lose any reason to be on an adventure? Thanks in advance for any opinions or thoughts on this. The end-all, be-all answer: Because someone has to do ALL of the dirty work...
Furryhowler 12-09-07, 02:59 AM	So my question is: why even bother fighting for either side? OOC: Because its a game :P ;) IC: Because the character may not believe that balance is inevitable :)