Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thasis 08-29-05, 09:55 PM	Guild Of Neutrality "Welcome all to the new halls of the Guild of Alignments. Here is where the Neutruls discuss all forms of alignment questions. This is also a place for Neutrul characters to stay and not have to worry about the temptations of Good nor Evil. For all who do not know, my name is Thasis the Neutrul. I am a philosopher and a professeor. All who seak my advice, or even the use of my extensive libary can enter. All are welcome, even non-neutruls, as long as you don't try to influence your alignment apon us." Members 1.) Thasis 2.) Aramar 3.) Master of Flame 4.) Jagyr Ebonwood 5.) If you wish to join jus post an application. There was no old guild member list and I didn't feel like going through the original thread to find all the members so if you were a previous member don't feel insulted that your not on the list.
Aramar the Black 08-29-05, 10:00 PM	Well, I've never been a member, but this sounds like a good place for another of my characters. Which, I'm not sure, but I'd like to join this guild, if I may. :)
thasis 08-29-05, 10:14 PM	Cool, first members. Welcome Aramar.
Master_of_Flames 08-29-05, 10:29 PM	sign me up. my swashbuckler is going to be LN (he has his own code of honor)
thasis 08-31-05, 09:11 PM	I added you. So anyone for some discussion?
Aramar the Black 09-05-05, 08:46 PM	Well, are we to be in the Guild Wars? Or, I had the most interesting philisophical discussion on the nature of good and evil with a frien the otehr day; I could show a bit of what we discussed, and we ourselves could talk about the subject.
thasis 09-05-05, 10:53 PM	I was thinking of this as more of a neutrul meeting ground for people. Basically you can come in hear if you have no weapons and such. And theirs magor anti-magic fields everywhere. Of the epic proportion. Hired epic people to do it I guess :P . Philosophical discussion much. That's what the main idea of the guild is I think. Atleast of the old guild it was.
Aramar the Black 09-05-05, 11:15 PM	Well, we had a discussion on the nature of god and evil; do they exist in actuallity, or are they just fragile thoughts of sentient beings? Are they prespective, or are they set views; so that one may be good or evil from anyone's viewpoint? In the end, I think we settled that good and evil both do and do not exist.
thasis 09-05-05, 11:33 PM	I think it all relates to your religious beliefs. But since that's banned for discussion if i'm correct then I'll put it into a neutrul view. Depending on your belief either you believe in two kinds of evil (generally but not always). One veiw of good and evil is that it's a defining force that determines what you are, where your going to go after death, etc. The other point of view is Good and Evil are not so much defining forces as what's socialy acceptable and what's not socialy acceptable. Good is usualy set as socialy acceptable and evil is usualy set as not socialy acceptable. That's my view of the thing at the momment. I am subject to change though.
Aramar the Black 09-06-05, 10:52 PM	yeah yeah. Which is a reaon why good and evil do and do not exist; it all depends on the person and thier personal beliefs, or society as a whole. They need not nessacarily exist; and, on that note, nothing is nessacary or not nessacary. And so, like the PHb says, being nuetral can be different things; it can be a non-conscious chioce, in simply not being a great acolyte of Good or Evil; it can be accepting all of the views of all alignments, seeing all alignmetns as valuables teahcers and guides along the road of life; or one can see nuetrality as the road above the other alignments, which are like swamps and quicksands in which people get caught. The kind of effect that this is haveing in creating my world is interesting, to say the least.
thasis 09-07-05, 06:31 PM	This is all verah true. Realy alignment isn't as simple as people make it sound. Good, Evil, and Neutrul can be potrayed so many ways and thought of in many diffrent ways. Such as "Was the crusade of Pelor against Nerull that resulted in many innocent deaths with no regard an evil act?". That could be taken many diffrent ways.
Jagyr Ebonwood 09-10-05, 08:36 PM	Sign me up. I never was one for the four extreme alignments. Give me "True X" any day.
jagggar 09-15-05, 12:11 AM	I'm up for joining for the discussion. Here's a question posited in Heaven's War by Micah Harris (writer) (I've got an autographed copy) and Michael Gaydos (artist). Is the relationship between good and evil like that of a checkerboard? Black and white, evil and good, equally valid options? Why or why not?
thasis 09-15-05, 09:53 AM	Yes and No. Everybody seems to have a clear distinction of what good and evil is, very black and white. But alot of people disagree what fits in each catagory.
jagggar 09-15-05, 10:04 AM	But you would agree that the only reason we can say this square is black is because that square is white? That good needs evil to define it as well as evil needing good to define it?
jagggar 09-19-05, 08:25 AM	Okay, guess I killed this topic. . . I take the opposite view, that good does not need evil in order to exist. Good existed first, then evil was 'created' as a parody of good. Anyway, new question if I may? What do you think happens when one dons a helm of opposite alignment, or is somehow subject to another alignment changing effect that keeps them from wanting to go back to their old alignment? For me it seems such a big change to happen in an instant without driving the subject mad.
Jagyr Ebonwood 09-19-05, 01:28 PM	Anyway, new question if I may? What do you think happens when one dons a helm of opposite alignment, or is somehow subject to another alignment changing effect that keeps them from wanting to go back to their old alignment? For me it seems such a big change to happen in an instant without driving the subject mad. I think that those kind of things should only be used with prior player knowledge/permission that they are going to be used... If you aren't expecting that, it could ruin a character for you...If I was having a lot of fun with a NG PC, and all of a sudden he's CE? That would bug me...but if I knew in the beginning that it might happen, I'd be prepared, and then consider it a challenge to reverse the effects... Check out the Mindrape spell in BoVD...now there's a cruel way to have your alignment changed...
jagggar 09-19-05, 05:42 PM	Mindrape also allows you to change the details of the subject's memory, doesn't it? I can see how the cleric of Mr. Goodie-Two-Shoes could be turned evil if someone got inside and messed with his mind. But if he's straped to a chair and BBEG or whoever else puts that fun, fun helm on him he isn't going to stop struggling and suggest they have tea while plotting the end of the local villiagers, now is he? Really I think this whole question may be a flaw in my thinking. I can understand someone suddenly seeing the light and repenting of all their earlier deeds and never wanting to harm another soul again, but I have trouble seeing the opposite happening.
Kingside_Bishop 09-19-05, 06:04 PM	I'm up for joining for the discussion. Here's a question posited in Heaven's War by Micah Harris (writer) (I've got an autographed copy) and Michael Gaydos (artist). Is the relationship between good and evil like that of a checkerboard? Black and white, evil and good, equally valid options? Why or why not?Just coming by for my regular checkup, and saw this... Is this discussion closed, yet? It's the sort of thing that floats my boat, if you will...
jagggar 09-19-05, 06:35 PM	Just coming by for my regular checkup, and saw this... Is this discussion closed, yet? It's the sort of thing that floats my boat, if you will... As far as I'm concerned, no discussion is ever really closed so long as there's still someone willing to talk about it. I'd love to hear your answer(s).
Aramar the Black 09-19-05, 07:46 PM	Same here. It a kind of discussion that could go on forever, as it focuses on abstrct material. Please, share.
Kingside_Bishop 09-20-05, 12:04 AM	As far as I'm concerned, no discussion is ever really closed so long as there's still someone willing to talk about it. I'd love to hear your answer(s).Same here. It a kind of discussion that could go on forever, as it focuses on abstrct material. Please, share.Thanks, friends! Here's my input: ~-~-~-~-~ The social world (of which "evil" and "good" are part) is the construction of social, intelligent beings (as evidenced in D&D as all creatures of "1", "2" or "--" Intelligence cannot have any alignment other than "True Neutral"). And, like all constructions, must constantly be rebuilt -- or, to use the terminology, reinforced. And so, the process follows: The natural (biological) world lacks qualities of good and evil, because it lacks the social and/or intellectual capability required for the creation thereof. We, being social and intelligent beings, create good and evil as a means to judge our own actions -- to determine what is right and wrong. We then create institutions (politics, economics, family, religion, etc.) to reinforce these (and other -- read: societial) creations. We individually take part in these institutions so that we collectively create a system upon which to judge the appropriateness our actions... a requirement for the creation of Culture. Thus, there are three axis' upon which good and evil can (or can't, depending) be found: Biological: The biological world lacks the mechanisms of good and evil. Societal: Social and intellectually endowed humans create good and evil so that Culture may thrive... overarching guidelines that serve to direct societies in constructive directions: good being constructive, and evil being destructive, from the persective of that culture. Individual: Although good and evil are socially defined by seperate societies (meaning seperate societies will have different definitions), the individual chooses which social system to apply, from the many choices.One choice -- just becoming viable in this post-modern age -- is the creation of one's own morality system, thereby creating one's own society. That is, rejecting, borrowing, and innovating to piece together a moral continuum (whether it's "good vs. evil" or "constructive vs. destructive", and so on) that fits with personal goals both for the individual and society. So, to illustrate this huge array of diversity, imagine it generalized into three categories: Each individual has the societal power to (re)define morality in the society around him or her. Conformity: Each individual can choose to lock into one of any number pre-existing set of ideas, thereby strengthening and reinforcing that moral system in his or her society in the social sphere immediately surrounding the individual (the more societal influence the individual has, the larger the sphere of influence). Deviation: Optionally, the individual can deviate, and create his or her own system to fit his or her world view -- in this case, the predominant moral system of the society the individual associates with would be weakened in the sphere immediately surrounding the individual, and the individual's morality would partially replace that pre-existing morality in the individual's sphere of influence. Innovation: Then, there's the middle road... small groups of individuals, working together, to create their own collective morality. Because of their combined effort, they are able to effect a larger social sphere than individuals working alone (although they must often compromise to some degree with one another in trade for this increase in their societal sphere of influence).A sweeping (over?) generalization: All stagnation flows from Conformity. All change flows from Deviation. All meanignful change flows from Innovation. Then, to sum it up... Can we say an act is fundamentally evil when another culture, just as valid as our own, says it is not? There is no such thing as ultimate good and evil, because those are social constructs created by humankind... differences in any number of things (biology, environment, etc.) lead to differences in "good" (constructive) and "evil" (destructive) behavior. Shift cultural (or, for that matter, individual) perspective, and the lines blur -- and come into an entirely new focus... or might not, depending on the moral system.
jagggar 09-20-05, 08:29 AM	The social world (of which "evil" and "good" are part) is the construction of social, intelligent beings (as evidenced in D&D as all creatures of "1", "2" or "--" Intelligence cannot have any alignment other than "True Neutral"). Actually, in 3.5, Zombies and Skeletons are 'Always neutral evil'. :rolleyes: ( <- at designers, not at you) There is no such thing as ultimate good and evil, because those are social constructs created by humankind... differences in any number of things (biology, environment, etc.) lead to differences in "good" (constructive) and "bad" (destructive) behavior. Wouldn't you technicly have to prove that no 'spiritual beings' that anyone claims to have been handed a definition of good and evil by don't exist? And that's all I got for now. . . Early, tired, brain stopped working weeks ago. . .
thasis 09-20-05, 09:53 AM	KB, this is exactly my philosophy in life. ^^ I'm glad somebody agree's.
Kingside_Bishop 09-20-05, 11:28 AM	Actually, in 3.5, Zombies and Skeletons are 'Always neutral evil'. :rolleyes: ( <- at designers, not at you)Foolish designers... down with them! Wouldn't you technicly have to prove that no 'spiritual beings' that anyone claims to have been handed a definition of good and evil by don't exist?Not necessarily... in my view, those "spiritual beings" are another social creation by which a moral system is reinforced, destroyed, or created. But, that's my perspective, drawn from the best sociological scholarship (from my perspective) currently available. Others might disagree -- and for them, my perspective would be partially invalidated. KB, this is exactly my philosophy in life. ^^ I'm glad somebody agree's.Thanks! I can see you going on to major in philosophy... hearkening back to your good ol' days with the Guilds of Alignment X...
jagggar 09-20-05, 01:10 PM	So does the elephant not exist? I refer to the story about the three blind mice who come upon an elephant. One says it is rope, one a tree, and I think the other says it is a wall. They aren't right, but they do describe qualities of the elephant. Post will get edited later to add stuff once I get it formed into words in my head if I get back before you reply.
thasis 09-20-05, 07:06 PM	Mmmm, yes KB, I've always been EXTREMLY intressted in philosophy. When I hit university I plan to take a Philosophy course. ^^ But untill then I'll stick to my message boards discussions. Strangely enough the person who taught me D&D is now a Philosophy professeour... *ponders*
Aramar the Black 09-20-05, 11:57 PM	Philosophy! I am definitly going to study it in college. It's so fun. KB, you have a philosophy that I can well agree with. If anyone has Complete Arcane, I think that there is a really good passage in there from the illusionist section. "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to witness it, then there is no tree." Basically, the world is one's own creation. Your perspectives create the world around, and so the entire world is an illusion, your unconsiouss being the wizard. Sort of. Does not exist does not exist.
Kingside_Bishop 09-23-05, 11:58 AM	Mmmm, yes KB, I've always been EXTREMLY intressted in philosophy. When I hit university I plan to take a Philosophy course. ^^ But untill then I'll stick to my message boards discussions. Strangely enough the person who taught me D&D is now a Philosophy professeour... *ponders*Philosophy is a great subject, but it can really suck -- it depends on your professor... if you get an arrogant ass, be prepared for a lecture on who had it right and who had it wrong. A good philosophy prof won't force "right" and "wrong" down your throat -- he won't make it all obvious who he gives more credit to. It's really funny, because in modern culture, most people are too concerned with finding "the answer". When someone would ask my favorite philosophy prof which philosopher "had it right" (or anything similar) he would use the exact same smile and shrug of the shoulders... that man was impossible to read. Through him, I gained an interest in Taoism. This same prof brought in statements of purpose from terrorist groups, fundamentalist religious organizations, and a whole slew of other controversial stuff -- that was a really original class, and I loved it. So does the elephant not exist? I refer to the story about the three blind mice who come upon an elephant. One says it is rope, one a tree, and I think the other says it is a wall. They aren't right, but they do describe qualities of the elephant.For each mouse, there is a different perceived reality, and for the elephant, there's an elephant there. So, there's four perceived realities -- because all realities are perceived (and thus subject to questioning) -- but that's not to say they're equally valid. The most valid reality among them, in my opinion, is that of the elephant. Once the elephant speaks up about his presence there, I imagine there will be only one perceived reality among the four of them -- that of the existence of the elephant. Philosophy! I am definitly going to study it in college. It's so fun. KB, you have a philosophy that I can well agree with. If anyone has Complete Arcane, I think that there is a really good passage in there from the illusionist section. "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to witness it, then there is no tree." Basically, the world is one's own creation. Your perspectives create the world around, and so the entire world is an illusion, your unconsiouss being the wizard. Sort of. Does not exist does not exist.I don't necessarily think the world is one's cration, but the perceived world certainly is. But, because all realities are perceived, we have no choice but to work with those perceptions. Essentially, there is an ultimate reality that transcends us all -- the "truth", if you will -- but it is something that cannot be attained by humanity, because our understanding will always be limited... that is, we can never understand infinity and nonexistence, and therefore, it is impossible for us to understand the universe because true reality is based on those concepts: always, and never. Therefore, we must create a perceived universe in which always and never don't exist -- a fundamental deviation from reality. And so, humanity's perceptions of the truth are always flawed; but, it is in our quest for that truth that we find our humanity. Paradoxical! I quote the Tao Te Ching:Nothing remains itself. Each prepares the path to its opposite. To ready for wholeness, first be fragmented. To ready for rightness, first be wronged. To ready for fullness, first be empty. To ready for renewal, first be worn out. To ready for success, first be fail. To ready for doubt, first be certain. Verily, fragmentation prepares the path to wholeness, the mother of all origins and realizations.Verse 22, "Celebrate Paradox"
Aramar the Black 09-24-05, 08:07 PM	Interesting. Well, I wasn't meaning to mean the physical world, but our life, the world we perieve, is our own creation. Sorry to step into religion if I shouldn't be, but there is a cool example given by some scientests and philosophers. Since we create our world, in a sense, then it seems possible that Jesus really could have walked on water. He knows how to create his world, though thought and faith and whatnot, and so when he believed, when he knew that he could walk on water, with every particale of his body, his thought, then he did walk on water.
gabrion 09-24-05, 08:31 PM	Wow, I was just stopping buy to see what is going on and I find a cool moral discussion. Being a philosophy major let me say that I highly recommend the subject to anyone who prefers an examined life over an unexamined one (an idea stolen from a philosopher of course). While KB is right that the experiece can be less ideal if the prof is an arrogant prick with a closed mind, the reading of past philosophers is enough to make any history of philosophy class worthwhile.
Kingside_Bishop 09-25-05, 10:07 PM	Interesting. Well, I wasn't meaning to mean the physical world, but our life, the world we perieve, is our own creation. Sorry to step into religion if I shouldn't be, but there is a cool example given by some scientests and philosophers. Since we create our world, in a sense, then it seems possible that Jesus really could have walked on water. He knows how to create his world, though thought and faith and whatnot, and so when he believed, when he knew that he could walk on water, with every particale of his body, his thought, then he did walk on water.That is interesting. I think it's taking the principle to far -- that this particular example clashes with the ultimate reality as I see it -- but if the world is more malleable to our perceptions than I believe it is, then that's a viable explanation. To relate this to the game, there's another system (Mage: The Ascension) by Whitewolf Games that operates on that principle -- reality as maleable by the realities that we choose. Wow, I was just stopping buy to see what is going on and I find a cool moral discussion. Being a philosophy major let me say that I highly recommend the subject to anyone who prefers an examined life over an unexamined one (an idea stolen from a philosopher of course). While KB is right that the experiece can be less ideal if the prof is an arrogant prick with a closed mind, the reading of past philosophers is enough to make any history of philosophy class worthwhile.Hey, you're a philosophy major? Sweeet... who's your favorite philosopher? Mine's Lao Tzu, in most of his many translations. As to reading philosophy texts... buy the book, drop the class. I mean, you've already bought the book by then anyway. Keep it until buyback, unless you need the money (and sometimes you do, being a student and all).
gabrion 09-25-05, 10:28 PM	Hey, you're a philosophy major? Sweeet... who's your favorite philosopher? Mine's Lao Tzu, in most of his many translations. I've only read limited amounts of Lao Tzu and Chang Tzu, and while I immensly enjoy the aesthetic of eastern philosophy (even though I'm sure translations don't do it justice), I'm more into western philosophy. "Favorite" is such a restrictive word...but Plato, Nietzche, Hegel, and Kant are all at the top of the list. Speaking of Nietzche, some of the ideas you mentioned (including creating a moral system and emphasizing innovation in the way humans view morality) are very close to some of his thoughts.
thasis 09-25-05, 11:12 PM	Mmm... I don't know any famous philosophers. I havn't read any books or anything on philosophy though.
Kingside_Bishop 09-26-05, 12:33 AM	No matter, Thasis. It's the interest that's the thing... that's the requirement.Speaking of Nietzche, some of the ideas you mentioned (including creating a moral system and emphasizing innovation in the way humans view morality) are very close to some of his thoughts.That'd be my roots in PolySci showing... especially in relation to Liberalism. For really interesting cross-disciplinary material, look up John Rawls and the "Veil of Ignorance" -- that is, before undertaking an action, asking yourself "would I be OK with this were it done to me?", and basing your actions off of the answer. Truly, all disciplines are connected.
Aeolus91 10-05-05, 04:22 PM	w00t w00t... sign me up for Neutrality! Every character I have ever played (With the exception of one that got CE'd by a set of cursed armor, but he was LN to begin with) was neutral. I recently began playing a character who takes neutrality to a rediculous point, considering every act that is either good or evil to shift the balance too much.
jagggar 11-26-05, 11:08 AM	We pause this riviting debate, in which it is jagggar's turn, to possibly bring you discussions on love, hate, and fear and/or an evaluation of pride. Actually, there's been quite a lot of I've wanted to espout about, but I don't particularly want to interrupt the RP going on at the conference.
Aramar the Black 11-26-05, 11:55 AM	Go ahead. The discussions at the Conference are interesting, but much to fast-flowing for me, so I cannot deeply involve myself.
jagggar 11-28-05, 12:33 PM	Okay, now this is one of the weirdest course of events for me. I didn't reply because I wanted to find something my dad wrote. I couldn't find it, I didn't reply. I finally reply to change the topic. Very same day, I find the notes I was looking for. Every body in the space-time continuum has their own point of view. Every body in the space-time continuum has only one point of view. Only God being outside the space-time continuum knows all points of view. see 10. A valid experiment can be preformed only when the experiment observer can see all points of view relevant to the experiment. An "n" body experiment has 2n+1 points of view. There are n points of view, one for each body. The second "n" points of view are the observers points of view, one each equivalent to each point of view of each body. The last point of view is the point of view from which the observer chooses to view the experiment. To move an observation from one point of view to another point of view requires an appropriate transformation. If n observers, each with a unique point of view, observe an experiement, then n experiments with n unique answers are the result. If we are given n bodies with n points of view some of these bodies, say m bodies with m points of view, may be used to derive a few points of view, say p points of view. The p is smaler than m and the m is smaller than n. Normal statistical techniques may be used given the appropriate transformations. The p points of view may not be used to derive the m points of view nor the n points of view. The m points of view may not be used to determine the n points of view. Every body has finite deminsions. (A body is not a point.) God is whatever is outside the space-time more or less continuum including the interdictions at the discontinuities of the space-time more or less continuum. see 3. One should never underestimate the power the threat of nonexistance has for changing a body's point of view. [This entry is in blue ink while the rest are in black.] I'm not going to lie and say I completely understand what he means/meant/whatever-tense-is-correct.
Aramar the Black 11-28-05, 05:26 PM	Okay, now this is one of the weirdest course of events for me. I didn't reply because I wanted to find something my dad wrote. I couldn't find it, I didn't reply. I finally reply to change the topic. Very same day, I find the notes I was looking for. Eh, I get that a lot. I use it to predict when something might well happen/be found. As for what your dad wrote, I think I get most of it. The only one I'm fuzzy on is number 5.
jagggar 06-05-06, 01:01 AM	Zap!!!
thasis 06-05-06, 01:10 AM	Zap... Zap... ZAP! Steal my saying will you *says Mindflayers to spank Jaggar* :P But yes, so let's say you kill someone to protect yourself. You are killing to defend your own life, but you are still taking anothers life, so wouldn't that make you as bad as they are? You may be in the right, but you are still also in the wrong.... :D
Aramar the Black 06-05-06, 01:11 AM	Think any of the new people are philosophy majors? Recommended Movie: What the Bleep do we Know? Edit: To reply to Thasis: ARe you saying that we kill one who is attempting to kill us? Certainly there is a level of wrongness in it; but if the only way to keep your own life was to kill them, then many would forgive. It depends on what kind of values you place on life and such.
thasis 06-05-06, 01:22 AM	Well I place no value on life so realy down in all it's never wrong to kill a person. But looking upon the perspective that everybodies life is worth something (and worth the same) you'd still be in the wrong to take the life of another who was attempting you to take yours. You'd be doing the wrong for the right cause however.
jagggar 06-05-06, 01:25 AM	'Tis but flattery by imitation. But what if they're killing you to save the life of two others? :P
thasis 06-05-06, 01:27 AM	Well it all depends. What's more important society or individual? If your going by the society over individual theory then the defending killer would be more in the right, but if your going by the individual over society look then they would still be in the wrong.
jagggar 06-05-06, 01:31 AM	What's more important society or individual? Well, are you Lawful or Chaotic? That's really one of the few areas that I can really tell the difference. I'll think up some examples of when I can't tell the difference later.
Lady Rolindin 06-05-06, 01:37 AM	thasis: Well it all depends. What's more important society or individual? If your going by the society over individual theory then the defending killer would be more in the right, but if your going by the individual over society look then they would still be in the wrong. jagggar 'Tis but flattery by imitation. But what if they're killing you to save the life of two others? this reminds me if you don't mind my comments, in the star trek movies when Spock scarficed his life to save the others and when he came back. "the many is some times more important than the one." "the one is more important than the many." It seems you have to look at the situation and make a jugdment for your self, and decide if death will help the many or if by not dieing that your living will benifit you and the many in other ways. Some times the moral choice is hard to make and if the benift is a greater benfit to socity and not your self then you have to sacafrice your self. some times by watching others being killed, it can benifit the socity as an whole (such as it could be a warning to the rest of the socity and they learn what is going on. Or by letting others die then they socity wakes up and can advendge them selves. It will scare you, but you will be able to see the benfits of such an action.) these actions are both hurt you and can help you to become stronger sometimes. It's too bad neutral charcater's have to deal with such issues, but they come up and a desion must be made. To live and let others die, or to die your self. it's a hard choice to make, but once made it will have effects on alot of people, not just you.
jagggar 06-05-06, 02:10 AM	Of course, I think that's also on an assumption that all life has (near) equal value. I'd say Neutral tends to value lives to different degrees. While perhaps slightly skewed towards a lawful society, Neutral would likely place a smaller value on the life of someone who disrupts society. Murder disrupts society, and some governments are willing to put muderers to death.
Aramar the Black 06-05-06, 10:09 AM	Here's another perspective, in which I try to avoid morality and ethics. I hope it doesn't come out as arrogant. To kill another is an unnessacary thing. Rarely, if ever, is there a logical or good reason for commiting such an act. If you are in the position where someone is about to kill you, and the only way to savce your own life would be to kill them, then it is an awkward thing. You might allow yourself to be killed, accepting death, adn knowing that, or hoping that, whatever follows life, your lot won't be too bad. (If you believe in reincarnation, your next life might have better circumstances, or if you believe in Heaven, that.) Feel perhaps pity or sorrow for they who have killed you, forgive them, hoping that they will learn of the unnessecity of thier actions, and thus be enlightend. Perhaps you kill them, seeing the action of putting them to death as a good thing, allowing them to move on from this world into the next stage, wether it be a heaven or hell or reincarnation, and hopefully they will become better for it. You yourself apoligize to them, felling sorrow for what you have done. Don't let the event effect your life too badly, but never forget it and the lessons it has taught you, about nessecity, unnessecity, death, and forgiveness.
jagggar 06-05-06, 10:34 AM	Warning: Bible Quote In youth group on Wednesday nights, we're studying the book of Revelation. I thought, since it's about the end of the world and ye doom-sayers are saying it will end tomorrow. . . The first chapter of the book is John of Patmos (the author of Revelation) having his vision of Jesus. Chapters 2 and 3 are letters to 7 churches in asia minor, a sort of review of how they're doing and what they can do better and such. "'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.'" -Revelation 3:15-16 (NASB) Some translations use the word 'spew' or 'vomit' instead of 'spit'. But how's that for an opinion on neutrality? Similarly, I remember seeing a quote in a book about hate not being love's opposite. Indifference was the opposite of love. Oh, and back on the end of the world: If it's supposed to end on 6-6-6, someone's missed the boat by about 2000 years. Because tomorrow is 6-6-2006.
Aramar the Black 06-05-06, 11:52 AM	Well, even if tehy world is accepting tomorrow being 6-6-6, then the antichrist will get another chance in 1000 years, should tomorrow not go as planned. (6-6-3006) Interesting quote. AS to indifference being the oppisite of love, I guess I can see how that works. Loving is feeling, caring, while indifference might be seen as niether. Thus, opposites. Hatred is feeling, but in a completly different way; thus it could be an opposite on a different axis.
jagggar 06-05-06, 12:07 PM	And why wouldn't 6-6-2106 work? As I said, boat's been missed by 2000 years already. Really though, the reason it will never happen on any 'ominous date' (a 666 or Hitler's birthday or whatever) is because it's not going to happen on the human timetable. If it did, we'd get a huge heads up from our Aussie friends.
Aramar the Black 06-05-06, 12:46 PM	Becuase it's more asethetically(sp?) pleasing to have it happen b milemiums; so 2106 wouldn't work, becuase it's the hundred and sixth year are 2000. 2006 or 3006 is less "tarnished" Though the whole thing is just fun fiction anyway.
thasis 06-05-06, 08:41 PM	Well that depends on how skewered your opinions are. Some people actualy believe that toomarow is the end of the world :P And to the concepts of killing another, personally, I'd kill them. Even if it wasn't to save my own life, yet it simply benifited me, I'd still do it. Now looking at one end, if I get caught it wouldn't benifit me. I think that's why I havn't killed someone yet :P
Aramar the Black 06-05-06, 09:10 PM	Philosophy discussion: Leads kids to become diplomats, philosophers, theologicans, and seriel killers. :P
jagggar 06-05-06, 09:26 PM	And people are worried about D&D. . . *looks up and sees what boards we're on* Heh. . . heh. . . heh. . .
thasis 06-06-06, 01:03 AM	Oh I do that... I scare people, when they realy get me going. Most parents think i'm the nicest kid, and they wonder why I hang around with their cutter/suicidal kids :P
Aramar the Black 06-06-06, 01:40 AM	On a similar note, many people say I'm the nicest person around, but some of my best friends are stoners and hard-core rockers. When some of my other friends had obituary projects, I came up with a list of various gruesome ways to die.
jagggar 06-06-06, 02:01 AM	Well, happy 6-6-2006. Another funny thing I thought up about the date and the world is going to end thing. Revelation wasn't even written before 6-6-6. Then there's the whole issue of if the calendar was that way yet, which it likely wasn't, at least not with the A.D. part of its labelling.
jagggar 06-06-06, 12:26 PM	Fine. I will join you all in your insanity at around 12:50 my timezone. I'm going out to Best Buy to see if I can't buy Underworld Evolution and the theatre is just a couple of blocks from there. If I didn't have a gift card, I wouldn't be doing this. Now, what topic should we discuss the movie in? Or should we create a topic about using movies and their monsters in games since we seem to be doing enough discussion on it.
thasis 06-06-06, 08:32 PM	I have yet to see the movie yet. I was supposed to see it opening night in theaters, and then I missed that, and pretty much oppurtunity I had to go see it. It realy sucks as I was realy stoked about the first movie and I'm f***ing glad I saw that as it's one of my favorite Vamp movies of all times (and I do love my Vamp movies).
jagggar 07-03-06, 05:20 AM	jagggar pulls up a chair, sits down, and tips it back on two legs. "Why, I ask, should we let the Good and the Evil merely fight it out for the world?"
Aramar the Black 07-03-06, 11:49 AM	I doubt fighting, old-fahioned and primitive as it is, yet counts as mere. Besides, if they waste thier time with fighting, that leaves the diplomatic field open to us.
thasis 07-03-06, 04:31 PM	Thasis the Evil casualy strolls in, "Simply my dead, because all sides profit from it. Good profits from it's supporters avidly donating money to them to fight their holy wars, evil profits from their desires, strengths, etc, and neutral profits as diplomats, middlemen, and conflict resolvers. Everyone wins in the end, and the balance is kept. I do support the side of evil, but I do understand the concepts of balance. Now keeping this balance? Well I never said I wanted that either". With that Thasis sits down and gives a devilish grin.
Aramar the Black 07-03-06, 05:33 PM	Either?
jagggar 07-03-06, 05:52 PM	"Simply my dead..."Dead? What's a dead? And who said she's his dead? "Balance, bah." jagggar concentrates for a moment and shortened staff of wood appears in her hand. She twirls it around for several minutes until it comes to rest on one of the bladed edges of her armor. "Balance is merely an excuse," she snaps her wrist, slicing through the staff, catching both halves, "for those who cannot choose a side."
thasis 07-03-06, 08:49 PM	"Don't be rambiling onto me about not choosing a side. I'm pretty sure it's apparent I have chosen a side. What is the side that you have chosen my dead?" Your new nickname is Dead. :D
jagggar 07-03-06, 10:11 PM	"I am my own side. The only benefit your constant bickering provides me is turned backs. And I am not yours."
Aramar the Black 07-03-06, 11:23 PM	"Balance is merely an excuse," she snaps her wrist, slicing through the staff, catching both halves, "for those who cannot choose a side." Cannot, or will not. Some wish not to play the game, but merely be spectators. Others are above sides. The game should be immersed in by those who are ready. Such a move is foolish or wise, perhaps both.
thasis 07-04-06, 01:23 AM	"Sides are not necessary to be picked immediatly. When I was young I picked a side to fast and I paid for it. Now I have lived longer then this plane has been around and I'm only realizing the true meaning of what I have chosen and what it grants me. Think deep and hard before a final decision is made"
Lady Rolindin 07-04-06, 04:05 AM	This is sometimes a hard thing to do depending on your aligment, but other times you are drawn into something. Take a look at triskar he's neutral good, but has his opions now on some things. Things can happen and change you towards evil or good what ever your aligment is. you still might be your aligment, but your perspective changes changes more towards good or evil. some time you are forced to chose a side Jaggar, by your experances your character has. blance even for a true neutral can lean towards good or evil.
thasis 07-04-06, 02:34 PM	"To keep the balance you sometimes need to take up the loosing side and get them back into a reasonable standings of power. I've worked with many great powers who claim to be true neutral, yet they've chosen sides at times"
jagggar 07-04-06, 09:41 PM	Cannot, or will not. Some wish not to play the game, but merely be spectators. Others are above sides. The game should be immersed in by those who are ready. Such a move is foolish or wise, perhaps both. "If you resign yourself to watching the game, you shouldn't complain about the outcome. Not caring and having goals that care less about Good versus Evil and more about other motives are not the same as Balance. Balance is for those who think they can have the 'best' of both Good and Evil." "Sides are not necessary to be picked immediatly. When I was young I picked a side to fast and I paid for it. Now I have lived longer then this plane has been around and I'm only realizing the true meaning of what I have chosen and what it grants me. Think deep and hard before a final decision is made" "And what doth your choice provide?"
Aramar the Black 07-04-06, 10:16 PM	Ah, then what we truely have here is a dicussion of definition and connotation. And when was I ever complaining?
thasis 07-05-06, 12:11 PM	"What has my choice provided!". With that Thasis lets out a great deep rumbiling laughter, "What has it provided?! Look at me". He then puts his arms out and does a slow sort of spin, "I am a creature of anchient old. And this is in my weakest avatarial form. The empires I have out of this place? They are great and many. I control more then most will ever know, or care to delve into... I am the leader of the most prominent and active Guild of Evil... not that that's saying anything at this point and time of activity within the lands, but none-the-less, during point of inactivity or not the support is always there, whether hidden to the public or not. I have the tools my dear. The tools, and all because I blanketed typical moral decisions. Can you tell me my choice has not proven to my great advantage?"
jagggar 07-10-06, 10:18 AM	Ah, then what we truely have here is a dicussion of definition and connotation. And when was I ever complaining? "I thought you were complaining about my dismissal of Balance. There are far more sides to those who are neither Good nor Evil than just the fools of Balance." "What has my choice provided!". With that Thasis lets out a great deep rumbiling laughter, "What has it provided?! Look at me". He then puts his arms out and does a slow sort of spin, "I am a creature of anchient old. And this is in my weakest avatarial form. The empires I have out of this place? They are great and many. I control more then most will ever know, or care to delve into... I am the leader of the most prominent and active Guild of Evil... not that that's saying anything at this point and time of activity within the lands, but none-the-less, during point of inactivity or not the support is always there, whether hidden to the public or not. I have the tools my dear. The tools, and all because I blanketed typical moral decisions. Can you tell me my choice has not proven to my great advantage?" "Use people; love things," she smiles. "Yet should you be torn asunder from your power, how many of your servants would remain loyal to you?"
Aramar the Black 07-10-06, 03:52 PM	"I thought you were complaining about my dismissal of Balance. I suppose I did express some feeling of dissatisfaction. There are far more sides to those who are neither Good nor Evil than just the fools of Balance." Like the Ignorami of Equilibrium?
Eglentyne 07-10-06, 07:20 PM	would your people under you still work for you, are they try to kill you. Once free from your yoke, would they remain loyal to you thasis? I do think about evil leaders and how loyal are their ones under them? how many of your people try to kill you thasis, if you give up your power. or you rule by fear, is your way?
thasis 07-11-06, 02:20 AM	"I rule by many diffrent factors. Fear is a very large factor. Fear keeps order, stiffens rebellion, etc. Force is also a determining factor. If people get out of a line... they know where they stand in my books. But beyond all of that, respect. My followers respect me for what I have earned, the power I hold, and the rest of others I have captured. You can think of me as you will, but I know where I stand with others and I am satisfied with it"
jagggar 07-11-06, 12:06 PM	"But is it you that they fear and respect, or your power?"
Lady Rolindin 07-11-06, 07:29 PM	from what I have read, it would seem to be a combanation of both. they followers both know what power thasis has and they fear him as well. as to what actions thasis would do to an unfaithful follower is a good question. would thasis have their head cut off and have it hung from a wall post? or would thasis have their body impalied on a stake outside the walls for all to see?
Verelor 08-05-06, 08:05 PM	Perhaps my eladrin buddies will be interesting in shaking this dull centrist monotony. ;)
redhase 08-05-06, 08:46 PM	Yes how can one stay neutral, if your villagewas invaded and taken over would you watch and let it happen. all this talk of being neutral, just lets me kmow that their are some who will willing become follow my characters when they invade your area. no one is truley neutral, things change that to make you evil or good. you either want renvenge or for the good of your socity fight back. would you willing submit your selves to be a servant if my characters took over your town. I could even sell you to the drow, you would make good slaves.
thasis 08-06-06, 03:56 AM	As to answer an old question, what does Thasis do to disobediant followers. It depends on the follower and situation. It all depends on variables. Thasis is not sparodic, but he knows how to teach a lesson and how to instill fear. His men both respect him and fear him. They respect his power and his judgement, and the fear keeps them in line and helps instill the the respect. One is hard to have without another.
Tenzhi 08-06-06, 04:42 AM	Yes how can one stay neutral, if your villagewas invaded and taken over would you watch and let it happen. One does not have to be good or evil to fight off an invading force. Nor does one have to necessarily side with Order or Chaos to do so. Simply protecting one's way of life is a neutral action.