Wow, that seems to be pretty well thought out, in fact I might start using this in my day to day lif...Hey! Wait a minute, the neutral people set you up to this didn't they?
No but in all seriousness, it's always better to be neutral but evil doesn't seem to ever care to see the difference between good and neutral, and without good, neutral dies, so it might be the sagest thing to do for your own interest, but not for the rest of the world's interest.
That's of course considering that evil never truly has a choice to make, while good can always be lazy or scared.
Wow, that seems to be pretty well thought out, in fact I might start using this in my day to day lif...Hey! Wait a minute, the neutral people set you up to this didn't they?
No but in all seriousness, it's always better to be neutral but evil doesn't seem to ever care to see the difference between good and neutral, and without good, neutral dies, so it might be the sagest thing to do for your own interest, but not for the rest of the world's interest.
That's of course considering that evil never truly has a choice to make, while good can always be lazy or scared.
I might not fully agree with the sentiment, but the philosphical value is spot on. I agree with Orlando here; tighten up the first half, as "stance" and "stand for" is redundant. Try "In an epic battle between good and evil, the sagest stance is none..." Good work!
Welcome to the Cafe. I hope that you will find your time here as wonderful as I have.
I must say your quote leaves many thoughts long after the page is closed.