speaking as somebody who I don't think actually got any money directly from FTX Future Fund that I can recall
'All my firearms sank in a boating accident' energy.
It's fine to call it your charity and your contribution that you undercharge for those utilons and don't capture as much value as you create - if you're nice enough to do that, which you don't have to be, you can be Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Good and I won't think you're as cool but I'll still happily trade with you.
(I apologize for resorting to the D&D alignment chart, at this point, but I really am not sure how to compactly express these ideas without those concepts, or concepts that I could define more elaborately that would mean the same thing.)
how have awful nerd writers like Yud not realized that D&D alignments are barely serviceable as a storytelling mechanism, much less an ethical framework? I keep seeing the alignment chart seriously mentioned as if it were an irrefutable aspect of human nature, but it was written as a gameplay mechanic (for spells/prayers that care if the caster or target is good or evil) and falls apart under the lightest scrutiny, as a lot of DMs and D&D writers have noticed. why is this still a thought-terminating cliche in nerd culture circles?
Spoken like a true Lawful Good weenie.
As a Chaotic Neutral INTJ Gray Tribe Ravenclaw Scorpio the DnD alignment system works great for analyzing behavior in hunter-gatherer societies and therefore ours.
You didn’t even declare your ruleset version….? G’damn casuals 🙄
(/s, of course)
This is not a for-the-greater-good argument; I don't think you're obligated to that much personal martyrdom in the first place
I half want to say "I'm sorry fucking WHAT" but then I realize it's that he just doesn't want competition on the position
