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?