Dulrik wrote:
Forsooth is on the same wavelength that I am. I don't believe in neutrality as a philosophy at all. Everything that thinks, feels and wants to live has some self-interest that will cause them to take the side of an issue that they believe will benefit them the most.
The way I see it, when we say good and evil, what we are really talking about is the range of complete selflessness to a level of selfishness that precludes consideration of anyone but yourself. Generally when we say selfish, we are usually thinking of the mild type that values yourself over others. But "evil" is really just an even more intense version of selfish.
1st para: True, we agree to disagree Dulrik. However, the fact that you don't believe in Balance/Neutrality as a philosophy does not mean it's not a heavy-duty part of almost every fantasy realm ever created. Check out most nature/monastic orders and you'll find it right there.
2nd para: A good way to put it, but you take away the very important element of enjoying evil beyond the advantage it brings. In the same way a really "good" guy will help others for the sake of doing so, so does an "evil" guy harm others because truly... he enjoys it/feels complete by doing so/finds it natural. It's not selfishness alone that will accomplish that. Nor its absense.
In the same way, are all characters who aren't selfish automatically good? There might be some guy who has gotten not to care about himself at all. But he could feel the same way towards others. A lot of similar cases are not covered by having the middle ground be labeled as "selfish".
I think that's an obvious, and objective flaw of the current system.
PS: Brad's suggestion sounds good, even though it effectively elevates one's worshipped god above his own personal ideals/ethics on good and evil. I think it's worth it, if we are going to have more freedom of movement and variety. I wouldn't mind if only laity could be a different aura than the god's.