[005]
Caswin
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \
to:
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. In retrospect, I probably should have done more outright editing in the sandbox; it isn\\\'t something I\\\'m used to.
However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down, assuming if I don\\\'t go ahead and fight against it\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down, assuming if I don\\\'t go ahead and fight against it\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \
to:
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down, assuming if I don\\\'t go ahead and fight against it\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down, assuming if I don\\\'t go ahead and fight against it\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \
to:
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down if I don\\\'t change it altogether\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down if I don\\\'t change it altogether\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Alright: This is much better than before. Good job. However, I\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \
to:
Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Alright: This is much better than before. Good job. However, I\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \
to:
Alright: This is much better than before. Good job. However, I\\\'m afraid I still have to question tying {{Character Alignment}}s to \\\"ForGreatJustice\\\" and \\\"ForHappiness\\\" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, RobinHood and [[VForVendetta V]] (movie edition) operated on principles and clear \\\"this villain must be punished\\\" streaks, and I wouldn\\\'t dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people\\\'s well-being a priority unto itself. ({{Superman}} once tried to solve world hunger. It didn\\\'t pan out.) While I\\\'m on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of \\\'\\\'RubyGloom\\\'\\\' (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven\\\'t heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can\\\'t see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as \\\"acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I\\\'m hardly going to let \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' slow me down\\\") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character (\\\"the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it\\\") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely \\\"principle\\\"-driven thinking. One doesn\\\'t displace the other, even without D&D\\\'s Neutral Good as a compromise.
