What DnD Character Are YOU? Options

[Sinder Velvin]

If you've ever wanted to know what Dungeons & Dragons character you are, check this out:

http://neppyman.irulethe.net/dndwho/

[DoomedOne]

You guys talking is like watching a three year old tie his shoe. Now listen to me, the one in here with true understanding on good and evil.

DnD is not realistically, people are complex, everybody has their faults and hypocracy that allows them to commit acts that you wouldn't consider in sinc with society. Good exist only on a social level, in that as long as people have some sort of social grip in their heads they will strive to be good people, as exemplified by that society. I live in a different perspective of good and evil, in my perspective, as exemplified by my ranger attitude and by my following of Solonor Theandria, I believe anything in favor of nature, ouroboros, humanity, balance, etcetera is good, and anything against it is evil. Everyone else has their own opinion.

For instance, take Channler, he probably feel that it's a very complicated issue but that God is absolutely good and to forsake God though not evil is definitely not good, he also feels very patriotic for his country and that anything against his country is an act of evil. Terrorists who he has probably decided are evil people have a completely different idea, but that's all compassion you know. The true question of good and evil comes between the quarrel of Beowulf and Gilgamesh.

In Beowulf, a monster skills and eats people, so Beowulf kills him and his mother, without mercy or understanding, believing them evil, and him good, so he can do no wrong, and they can do no right.

In Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh kills the monster of this forest, but the monster did not want to die, and showed a plea of mercy, which was ignored. Gilgamesh, in believing there he can do no wrong and the monster no right, forsook his own humanity in slaying him. He saw a person after he slew that monster and it haunted him. That's where the difference is.

Beowulf is arguable a sociopath, he could not see the humanity behind the monster. Sociopaths are the only people in this society that you could claim to be evil. It's not that they feel nothing, it's that they have no society invested in their brain, and therefore no society has managed to infiltrate any moral structure. They feel nothing for taking advantage of people or murdering people. Even then it's not their choice to feel nothing. They can't change their minds and learn to like to like people.

Now then, because every human applies to some society, even terrorists, and no matter how ideological in it where they close their minds and ignore the human in their enemy, every human obviously believes they are good. Though in a universal perspective good and evil do not exist, in my perspective any human who believes he is good, just plainly good with no problems to think of is a truly evil person, a sociopath, or an ideologue that drove themselves insane. Everyone must accept their inner beasts as part of themselves and be aware of it, and attempt to learn of all people and study under all people if they ever want to get close to committing good, but my kind of good.

In that way I think the only palce Channler and I disagree is that I believe good must be committed on the world first, not on a single country, and I believe the universe is neutral, he probably believes the universe takes the side of good. Oh yeah, and that whole evolution thing.