PDA

View Full Version : Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns



kiapet
2014-01-16, 07:10 AM
I've played several Neutral characters over the years. (I mean on the Good-Evil scale.) The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

Darazel
2014-01-16, 07:24 AM
Well, you could try to do those things for your own benefit. A simple mean to that may be to charge money.

A fighter saving a village because he does not want the people to suffer may be good.

But a fighter saving a village because (and only when) he is paid to do so is a mercenary and would be considered neutral (at least by me).

EDIT: Ninjad.

Swaoeaeieu
2014-01-16, 07:24 AM
the way i see it is that alignment is not a judgement passed on you according to the actions you undertook. You are not neutral because you saved a cat and kicked a puppy. Your alignment says something about the reason you do things.

Neutral characters do things not because it is the good thing to do but because they want do for a neutral reason (paiment for instance).

you dont have to do some evil things after the good ones to stay neutral. as long as you do the good deeds for a neutral reason.

am i making sense?

OldTrees1
2014-01-16, 07:30 AM
Personally I disagree with the Giant on Neutral alignment. While those are both examples of neutral alignment they are not the whole of Neutral.

To me neutral is best summarized by the phrase "good is not easy".

So a benevolent character could fail to be good (aka be neutral) by:
1) Equal focus on amoral factors (personal gain from the venture)
2) Only taking the easy opportunities to help others (letting the difficult opportunities pass by)
3) Using minor evil means to promote good ends (Ex: rough interrogation)

Neknoh
2014-01-16, 07:31 AM
Why would a neutral character have to balance things out?

The notion of "Must balance out." pretty much equals to "Ok, so i saved the orphanage. You, youngest from the orphanage, come here!" ¤stabs kid in the eye¤

Which, to me, is just plain stupid "Stupid Neutral?"

A neutral character, to me, is simply about having a more morally grey area to work with, need to interrogate the prisoner? The Neutral could well be the Bad Cop, hanging him out over cliffs and actually not caring if he drops him, but not just randomly pulling the teeth out of a prisoner the first thing he does.

A neutral character wont be the first to dive into a building on fire unless his character demands it (say, burning orphanage, was an orphan). A Neutral character CAN do plenty of good, but he could also be the git who won't leave a crumbling catacomb because there's still treasure there.

A neutral character could be a mercenary or a soldier fighting for himself or his own rather than "fighting the good fight against the evils of this world."

My neutral character in Rise of the Runelords is a Giant Slayer and an Outsider: Exile, meaning her village was plundered by giants and she's dedicated her life to protecting people from them, however, this is not out of duty, this is out of a thirst for revenge and she will not be quick to show a giant mercy for nearly any reason. If there are still fresh traces, she'll go off hunting for them, if not, she'll try to help the survivors of wherever the recent attack was.

I honestly don't like the alignment system, it's far too black and white for my liking, but one makes do with what one's got.

hamishspence
2014-01-16, 07:32 AM
To me neutral is best summarized by the phrase "good is not easy".

So a benevolent character could fail to be good (aka be neutral) by:
1) Equal focus on amoral factors (personal gain from the venture)
2) Only taking the easy opportunities to help others (letting the difficult opportunities pass by)
3) Using minor evil means to promote good ends (Ex: rough interrogation)Seconded. In fact, even evil characters can do good deeds with good motivations, it's just that they do major Evil deeds (for whatever reason) as well.

Neutral characters can fit this mold too- with the Evilness dialed down sufficiently.


Why would a neutral character have to balance things out?
They wouldn't (usually, except for Mordenkainen-type characters and some druids) be motivated to "balance things" - it would be the GM's interpretation of the overall pattern of the character's actions, that would be "they're roughly balanced".

kiapet
2014-01-16, 09:33 AM
I feel like playing neutral characters is a little harder because you have to find excuses for things that good characters would do naturally. For example, a neutral character of mine saw a woman crying. I knew that it was a plot hook, but had to think up a reason for my character to even care about some random crying woman.

Feint's End
2014-01-16, 09:39 AM
Well first of all lets say that the alignment system is pretty bad in itself and that you should avoid it as much as possible. Secondly as mentioned before the reason why you do things is which alignment you are.
You can be one of the nicest persons and still be neutral simply because you won't go out of your way to help people you don't know. But if you are nice to your neighbours, give them presents if they have birthday that doesn't make you "good" in D&D terms. It just means you are neutral.

Actually some of the evil alignments are not as bad either -> lawful evil for example could be a money loving **** who would almost do everything to get money but he would never kill someone for it.

The problem is that people look at the alignment table and see 3 lines and think "Oh ... there are bad, neutral and good people in this world" but the alignment system in and itself is wrong.

A more realistic views on general archetypes of alignments:
Good alignments mean you are a saint because you go out of your way to help people. Only a few people in the real world are good by how good in D&D is defined.

Neutral alignments (at least the more lawful part) tend to be the middle to the upper part. They want to be happy and also the people around them to be happy. They are good people by our worlds definition since they try to stay out of doing bad things and care for their family and friends. I feel the infamous Chaotic Stupid alignment is just overrated (and wrongly played) and just a different way of being the before mentioned things.

Now evil is the bad apple because the pure concept is stupid. Lawful evil persons could still care for their familys and friends but they don't stop when it comes to making money (I feel like this is a good example). Neutral evil and Chaotic evil are mostly sociopaths. Neutral evil because they go out of their way to harm and spread evil and Chaotic evil because this alignment has sociopath written all over it.

So to put it short: A normal world (D&D worlds maybe have more good and evil people) has very, very few people of good alignment; a lot of neutral alignment; a good punch of lawful evil alignment; a small amount of neutral evil and chaotic evil alignments

D&D good -> realworld saint; D&D neutral -> realword good; D&D lawful evil -> realworld rutheless but still somewhat respectable; D&D chaotic and neutral evil -> sociopaths

Remember though that alignments shift and are seen different by people from different cultures.

Diarmuid
2014-01-16, 09:41 AM
I just dont think this is really that hard. Having to come up with reasons to do something seems counterproductive to the whole alignment thing. Would your character ask a crying woman what's wrong. Yes, no. If no, then be a big boy (or girl) and deal with the consequences of that action (or in this case, inaction).

If you must "think of something", again it just shouldnt be that hard: Curiosity, interest in persuing relationship, simply wanting to not hear the crying anymore, desire to maintain a "polite" persona to others around.

Spore
2014-01-16, 09:43 AM
Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess to strongly suggest getting laid by her, save the helpless villagers to then be their reeve, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king (to become his royal advisor), ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

I really like doing good to accomplish own goals.

Zweisteine
2014-01-16, 09:43 AM
A fighter saving a village because he does not want the people to suffer may be good.

But a fighter saving a village because (and only when) he is paid to do so is a mercenary and would be considered neutral (at least by me).
And a Fighter who saves the village because he wanted to slaughter the attacking monsters is evil.


There are, in my opinion, three broad types of Neutrality.
1. Natural neutrality: You are neutral because you simply don't really have much of an alignment. This is a bit like 4e's "unaligned." Animals are neutral because they aren't intelligent enough to have morals/ethics/whatever.

2. Balancer neutrality: You actively seek balance between the alignments. The guy who saves a cat and kicks a puppy might belong here, but it is really more of a "out to stop extremes." For example, you'd stop a lawful good tyranny (Miko's in charge of it) because it's too lawful, not because it's a tyranny. A classic lawful evil tyranny would be stopped because it is too evil, not too lawful (probably, or maybe both).

3. Basic neutrality: This is the standard type, what most people have. You're neutral because you serve yourself, but only to an extent. You'll protect your town, but because you love your town, not because it's the right thing to do. You might keep quiet/help cover up a murder, because you don't want to be involved with it. For an adventurer, you're out adventuring because you want to be more powerful/wealthy, most likely. If your most frequent employer was in serious danger, you might volunteer to help for free, but only because he's a good source of income, not because you're out to save him (unless he's also a friend).

Of course, as any alignment, it's far more complex than that, but I hope that helped.

NEO|Phyte
2014-01-16, 09:55 AM
A Good person saves the world because it's the right thing to do.
A Neutral person saves the world because the end of the world is kinda inconvenient if you wanna keep living. (assuming they aren't neutral to the point of apathy)
An Evil person saves the world because you can't eventually rule something if it goes away. (assuming evil to the point of villainy, regular old evil falls under the same umbrella as Neutral)


This is of course a generalization. Individual characters may have their own reasons for doing things. For instance, the character immortalized in my avatar is busy trying to prevent Atropus from returning to Eberron because if it kills everyone, he can't have the satisfaction of personally hunting down and taking his time executing the people behind the Day of Mourning.

Scalpless
2014-01-16, 10:06 AM
Neutral evil and Chaotic evil are mostly sociopaths. Neutral evil because they go out of their way to harm and spread evil and Chaotic evil because this alignment has sociopath written all over it.

Not really. From the SRD:

"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple."

For example, a very career-focused person who does some backstabbing whenever it's beneficial and is a jerk could be neutral evil.

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal."

Could be a gang leader or something similar. Does drugs, beats people up, has random outbursts of aggression.

I think people only see the extremes of their alignments too often. Yes, a True Neutral character could be obsessed with balance and a Chaotic Evil character could be a serial killer, torturer and pyromaniac, but that's not always the case.

Segev
2014-01-16, 10:08 AM
Neutral people can be just as driven as good or evil ones.

Neutral people have more morals than evil ones, but less than good ones.

A neutral person probably does balk at murder, and may even step in to help defend somebody from a murderer. He may even consider a murderer who kills somebody he hates to be in the wrong. But he might not rescue that hated person from the murderer. Not that he'd deliberately wait for the murder to happen before acting, but he might decide that merely letting people whose job (or whose predilections) demand(s) that they help is sufficient.

A neutral person might turn a blind eye to evil being done, as long as it isn't impacting him and his. A neutral person is far more likely to decide that the ends justify the means; he'll willingly (if not necessarily happily) perform the calculus to allow the dragon to eat the maiden if it would ensure the town (full of far more people than just the one) was safe. By the same token, he would slay the dragon for its hoard, but not just because it was threatening a random village in which he had no investment.

A neutral person is looking out for number 1, but he's not so callous as to view others as merely tools or obstacles. If it won't hurt him too much, he'll help others out (the degree depends on the level of danger and the cost to himself and his own laziness). While he'd far prefer to avoid harming others to harming them (because his conscience would niggle at him for it), he will do harm to those who haven't wronged him if he has to for a sufficiently driving reason.

And to a neutral person, "sufficiently driving" reasons can be selfish. He will generally have a firm line he won't cross, still, if only from the perspective of "do unto others as you would have done unto you." Where the evil person sees others as things to be exploited, and will thus harm them whenever expedient, the neutral person will stop short on the basis that he wouldn't want to suffer what he would have to do.

But by the same token, he is more willing to force onto others what he would not choose to himself endure if it's needed badly enough. A good person might be paralyzed by a hard choice between harming one group and harming another. The neutral person will pick based on what gets him the most, or costs him the least.

Neutral people will go FARTHER in pursuit of their goals than will good people, but they are less prone to grandiose plans meant to "find a third option" when the morally ambiguous option still gets them what they want. They will not go AS FAR as evil people, particularly in search of petty goals, because their consciences won't let them. But if it's the only way...

Neutral is on a sliding scale between good and evil. They'll do more ambiguous acts than will good guys, but they'll balk at things with which evil will have no problems.

ElenionAncalima
2014-01-16, 10:12 AM
Usually, the biggest motivators for neutral are self-preservation, rewards, protection of the things they care about and personal beliefs.

If goblins attack them, they are going to fight back. They might take out the goblins if the town is willing to pay. They might also do it if they live in the town and they don't want the goblins to burn their house down and kill their family. Or perhaps, a goblin killed their father and now they hate all goblins.

Fouredged Sword
2014-01-16, 10:22 AM
I think the balancing idea of neutrality works for the law/chaos scale.

"I like my freedom, but I want the protection of laws" is a valid argument, and both good and evil characters can function with a desire for both law and chaos.

Good and evil seems less functional in that manner though.

Big Fau
2014-01-16, 10:37 AM
Good and evil seems less functional in that manner though.

It's very much functional, you just need to figure out a motive beyond "Balancing the two extremes". Like this guy:

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131012143224/avatar/images/a/a8/Sly_Varrick.png

Really, the idea of LN, CN, and TN being about balancing out the G/E scale is a bad way to envision characters of those alignments. Even the Inevitables, the staple LN creature, are more concerned about the L than the N.

hamishspence
2014-01-16, 10:52 AM
Not really. From the SRD:

"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple."

For example, a very career-focused person who does some backstabbing whenever it's beneficial and is a jerk could be neutral evil.

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal."

Could be a gang leader or something similar. Does drugs, beats people up, has random outbursts of aggression.

Would certainly fit with settings where close to 1/3 the population of an ordinary settlement are Good, and 1/3 Evil- like Eberron.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-16, 11:08 AM
Here's one interpretation of Neutrality:

You could totally do good stuff, it's just that you don't really prefer good or evilness, and you don't really think about it in terms of good or evil. You'll do whichever you perceive to be beneficial (whether because of gold, social pressures, goal achievement, or other inducements).

Drachasor
2014-01-16, 11:17 AM
You can easily be neutral and prefer good (most people don't like evil for simple pragmatic reasons). You can help others as a neutral character for many reasons. You will help out at personal cost family, friends, and others you have a personal connection to.

However, you neutral characters do not help others in general when it requires personal sacrifice. At 10th level stopping a murder in front of you being committed by a level 1 guy is trivial and a neutral character could do that (not really much sacrifice there). Stopping an equal CR murder on the other hand, is probably something they'd avoid unless they had a personal stake. They might demand payment to rescue a princess, something to justify their personal sacrifice. However, after rescuing her, getting to know her and becoming friends, they'd be far more willing to make sacrifices without needing payment or even needing to be asked.

And of course they are free to pursue their own interests.

Zweisteine
2014-01-16, 11:19 AM
He may even consider a murderer who kills somebody he hates to be in the wrong.
A neutral person (in this case, under a civilized, non-evil government) would almost certainly consider any murderer to be in the wrong, simply because society says that murder is wrong, so he would accept it.

It's the whole idea of "he may have been a horrible person, but he didn't deserve to die."

(This does assume that "hate" is more of a disliking, not a "he killed my family" level of hate.)

I'd argue with your post quite a bit more, if I wasn't so lazy...

sjeshin
2014-01-16, 11:21 AM
I've played several Neutral characters over the years. (I mean on the Good-Evil scale.) The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

Well, in your given example, that character would still easily be neutral. True neutrality is about WHY you do things. Not quite so much what you do. While killing innocents will always be evil, saving the princess just because it will earn you renown in the area is not a good act. Helping an old lady across the street simply because it is easy enough is also not worthy of being called a truly good act. If you do it with a kind memory of your grandmother, thinking of how you would walk with her, this is easily still neutral. Your main motivation is your personal relationship with a family member, and the fond memory of her.

If you are having trouble figuring out why a character would do something, because of his alignment, you are too caught up in alignment. Think of the character FIRST. The best rule my first DM told me about in character creation and play is this: "Before you pick a class, pick an alignment. Before you pick an alignment, pick a person." Think about who this person you are roleplaying is, what they are capable of, and try to get a feel for who they truly would be. A lawful good father of three would still brutally kill a man and maybe even continue hacking at his corpse if he came through the door as the man finished off the last of his family.

You aren't playing an alignment, you are playing a person. Real (fantasy) people will never be perfectly in tune with an alignment at all times. Alignment is what your character is pre-disposed to do. In a moment of passion, who knows what that LG fighter is capable of. A paladin's code of conduct class feature is not reprinted in the Lawful Good entry in the alignments section of the PHB.

TriForce
2014-01-16, 11:25 AM
well for starters, a alignment is a guideline AT BEST, it doesnt forbid or force a character to do anything. also, its possible to be lawful good and still be racist, or be chaotic evil and do anything to protect your family, including sacrifising yourself.

neutral usually means that a character isnt actually dedicated to something. while a paladin would gladly stop a goblin attack on a random village, and expect nothing in return, a neutral character who decides to stop it would likely expect SOMETHING in return, be it gold, fame, or favors from the lady (s) he saved.

good characters consider "because its the right thing to do" all the reason they need for anything, while neutral characters are more likely to consider risk/reward. this doesnt mean they need to be promised a reward for EVERYTHING, just that they at least act surprised or dissapointed when there isnt any.

gold, curiosity, fame, recognision, bragging rights. these are all good reasons for a neutral character to do anything

Drachasor
2014-01-16, 11:25 AM
A neutral person (in this case, under a civilized, non-evil government) would almost certainly consider any murderer to be in the wrong, simply because society says that murder is wrong, so he would accept it.

It's the whole idea of "he may have been a horrible person, but he didn't deserve to die."

(This does assume that "hate" is more of a disliking, not a "he killed my family" level of hate.)

I'd argue with your post quite a bit more, if I wasn't so lazy...

A neutral person is perfectly capable of viewing murder as evil on principle. Just because he isn't comfortable making a personal sacrifice to stop a killer doesn't mean he doesn't think killing other people is inherently wrong for many reasons above and beyond "well everyone else dislikes it" or "it's against the law".

Segev
2014-01-16, 11:32 AM
Yeah, basically, a neutral person won't put himself out unless there's something in it for him. The less in it for him, the less he'll put himself out. Where a good person might have the same restriction, the good person's consideration would be whether or not he can afford to put himself out that much, and the more good he is, the more he'll strive to justify putting himself out. The neutral person is more likely to help the less it costs him and the more wrong he perceives the thing he's helping alleviate to be.

An evil person simply won't put himself out at all if there's not enough in it for him, even if it would cost him very little.

A good person would NEVER cause harm to an innocent for personal gain. A neutral person almost never would, but if that harm were small enough and the gain large enough, might (e.g. he might pick a rich man's pocket for the pittance - to the rich man - in his belt pouch if it makes the difference between comfort and misery for the neutral thief). An evil person wouldn't hesitate to harm another, innocent or not, for something he wants. He might hesitate if the attempt would be costly to the evil person, because he doesn't want to risk it, but he wouldn't hesitate if the only thing stopping him was some petty notion that other people matter more than random objects.

sjeshin
2014-01-16, 11:34 AM
I've played several Neutral characters over the years. (I mean on the Good-Evil scale.) The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

Well, in your given example, that character would still easily be neutral. True neutrality is about WHY you do things. Not quite so much what you do. While killing innocents will always be evil, saving the princess just because it will earn you renown in the area is not a good act. Helping an old lady across the street simply because it is easy enough is also not worthy of being called a truly good act. If you do it with a kind memory of your grandmother, thinking of how you would walk with her, this is easily still neutral. Your main motivation is your personal relationship with a family member, and the fond memory of her.

If you are having trouble figuring out why a character would do something, because of his alignment, you are too caught up in alignment. Think of the character FIRST. The best rule my first DM told me about in character creation and play is this: "Before you pick a class, pick an alignment. Before you pick an alignment, pick a person." Think about who this person you are roleplaying is, what they are capable of, and try to get a feel for who they truly would be. A lawful good father of three would still brutally kill a man and maybe even continue hacking at his corpse if he came through the door as the man finished off the last of his family.

You aren't playing an alignment, you are playing a person. Real (fantasy) people will never be perfectly in tune with an alignment at all times. Alignment is what your character is pre-disposed to do. In a moment of passion, who knows what that LG fighter is capable of. A paladin's code of conduct class feature is not reprinted in the Lawful Good entry in the alignments section of the PHB.

Particle_Man
2014-01-16, 01:37 PM
I sort of see it that the neutral characters will care about close friends and family, but otherwise won't go out of their way to help others if it is too risky. The way to get Neutral characters in adventures with Good characters easily is to have them all be friends.

hamishspence
2014-01-16, 01:45 PM
A good person would NEVER cause harm to an innocent for personal gain. A neutral person almost never would, but if that harm were small enough and the gain large enough, might (e.g. he might pick a rich man's pocket for the pittance - to the rich man - in his belt pouch if it makes the difference between comfort and misery for the neutral thief).

According to PHB, few characters are perfectly consistent- the example given was Tordek the Lawful Good dwarf, who has a greedy streak and may be willing to steal if he can justify it to himself.

Segev
2014-01-16, 01:49 PM
According to PHB, few characters are perfectly consistent- the example given was Tordek the Lawful Good dwarf, who has a greedy streak and may be willing to steal if he can justify it to himself.

Oh, sure. I am speaking in generalizations, here. One "less than paragon of good" trait, even portrayed as a consistent character flaw, does not make you "fall" to neutrality.

Nobody, save God, is perfect. And depending on your D&D setting, God doesn't exist in it.

Neknoh
2014-01-16, 06:27 PM
According to your above example though, a street urchin cutting a purse and running into an alleyway would flag as Neutral/Chaotic evil, if he doesn't care who he took it from.

I know it is an extreme example, but if simply "Not caring for strangers loss at your own personal gain" is a token of evil, there are a LOT of evil characters around.

veti
2014-01-16, 08:43 PM
Here's one interpretation of Neutrality:

You could totally do good stuff, it's just that you don't really prefer good or evilness, and you don't really think about it in terms of good or evil. You'll do whichever you perceive to be beneficial (whether because of gold, social pressures, goal achievement, or other inducements).

Hmm. So a Neutral character is perfectly OK with burning down orphanages, as long as someone is paying them to do it? I don't think so.

As far as I'm concerned, a neutral character, by definition, does have moral limits and rules. It's just that they're not as strict as a good character's limits. But a neutral character won't wantonly endanger or harm innocents, unless in the most extreme situation.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-16, 08:58 PM
Hmm. So a Neutral character is perfectly OK with burning down orphanages, as long as someone is paying them to do it? I don't think so.


Not quite. It would probably take something like severe pressure by authority figures (i.e. neutral-aligned soldier ordered by commanding officer to burn down an orphanage), or some other threat (i.e. some hostage-taker tells neutral-aligned parent to burn down an orphanage, or else his/her kids will be shot) to move a Neutral character to such extremes of depravity.

Besides, the Neutral character could totally regret his actions later on, and/or give a reason like "I had no choice", "I was just following orders/doing my job" or "my kids were in danger". That said, it would probably take similar inducements and socialization to push a Neutral character to extreme good acts like donating most of his/her possessions to charity, or taking a bullet for someone else.



As far as I'm concerned, a neutral character, by definition, does have moral limits and rules. It's just that they're not as strict as a good character's limits. But a neutral character won't wantonly endanger or harm innocents, unless in the most extreme situation.

I agree with this.

Jay R
2014-01-16, 09:02 PM
I've had to explain to my DM, more than once, "No, my Thief is not Lawful. He isn't stealing anything right now because he's traveling with a Paladin, and continuing to do that is more profitable right now than picking pockets. It's a purely self-centered, greedy decision."

Rhynn
2014-01-17, 01:03 AM
The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

If this is the case, then The Giant is incorrect, and contradicts basically all descriptions of alignment in AD&D and D&D 3.X...


Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect.

That's basically never been my experience in 20 years, across many, many games...

The classic D&D adventure is "a bunch of treasure-seekers enter a dungeon."


Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

Your premise is faulty, and thus this is a dilemma that does not exist.

Neutral characters can do good things for selfish reasons (but not always to get paid; they can do it to help out someone they like or love), but generally, Neutral characters do good things because it's easy and they're not Evil.

In general, put very simply:
- Good characters do Good things even at a personal cost. (How great a cost depends on how brave, etc., they are; you can be Good but a coward.)
- Neutral characters do Good things when there's no personal cost, and may do Evil things if there's a personal benefit.
- Evil characters mostly do Evil things, for personal benefit (which may be, in extreme cases, something like "personal gratification" or "fiendish pleasure").

Coidzor
2014-01-17, 01:26 AM
What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? (http://youtu.be/tXb9L8LW4XI?t=4m48s)

Mostly I've handled it by being rather laissez faire with the whole making the world a better place and picking up the pieces after they deck evil in the schnoz. Depose the evil tyrant and make off with the loot, sure, but set up something benevolent to replace him? Naaah, that's too much work. Plus, if another tyrant comes along, I get to deck them in the schnoz and take their stuff too.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-17, 01:46 AM
Mostly I've handled it by being rather laissez faire with the whole making the world a better place and picking up the pieces after they deck evil in the schnoz. Depose the evil tyrant and make off with the loot, sure, but set up something benevolent to replace him? Naaah, that's too much work. Plus, if another tyrant comes along, I get to deck them in the schnoz and take their stuff too.

Obviously, the solution is to replace him with yourself, and let the whole kingdom enjoy your hilariously corrupt fair and neutral reign. Or install one of your cronies trusted companions as leader, so he can take the heat leave you free to adventure.

And then, if your crony cuts you off from the gold-supply once-trusted companion turns tyrant himself, you can depose him and install a different crony hope the realm's future is brighter under a new master.

hamishspence
2014-01-17, 07:03 AM
I know it is an extreme example, but if simply "Not caring for strangers loss at your own personal gain" is a token of evil, there are a LOT of evil characters around.

As Eberron tends to put it:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people

kiapet
2014-01-17, 07:23 AM
[QUOTE/]That's basically never been my experience in 20 years, across many, many games...

The classic D&D adventure is "a bunch of treasure-seekers enter a dungeon
[QUOTE/]

I recently played a campaign where my party of mostly neutral characters was protecting a village from undead. That was the inspiration for this thread. I do understand everyone's point, though. What still confuses me about neutrality was whether a "balance" oriented neutral could exist. I feel like anyone is going to prefer a benevolent ruler to a tyrant, even if it isn't "balanced".

Berenger
2014-01-17, 08:11 AM
I've played several Neutral characters over the years. (I mean on the Good-Evil scale.) The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

Or option c) ...

If you do good deeds for neutral reasons, you can do as many of them as you wish. You don't have to kick a random puppy to "balance your account". You can rescue a princess because you hope for a monetary reward, a special favour, a "special favour" or fame. You can reveal the plot to take down the king because it is your civil duty or because your family belongs to the loyalist party. You can get cats off trees and old ladies over the road because you want to remain in good standing within your community (or, if abroad, because it is a habit you originally developed for that reason). You can do it because it feels right and gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside and can remain perfectly neutral.

GungHo
2014-01-17, 11:13 AM
I've had to explain to my DM, more than once, "No, my Thief is not Lawful. He isn't stealing anything right now because he's traveling with a Paladin, and continuing to do that is more profitable right now than picking pockets. It's a purely self-centered, greedy decision."

The class is Thief, not Kleptomaniac.

Fouredged Sword
2014-01-17, 11:25 AM
Even the ruler concept has wiggle room for a neutral character to dislike a pure good ruler.

"He keeps giving all the tax revenue to the poor. That money is meant to build roads and bridges for the merchants!" said Marcus Alexander, LN merchant.

Wanting the king to spend money on infrastructure and things that benefit your social class is fine and not evil, but may also be at odds with some forms of good.

Rhynn
2014-01-17, 11:32 AM
I feel like anyone is going to prefer a benevolent ruler to a tyrant, even if it isn't "balanced".

Absolutely - in the nine-alignment system, especially the D&D 3.X version, Neutral people are likely to prefer Good rulers, neighbors, etc., because that means they are less likely to be subject to themselves.

The Balance-oriented Neutral doesn't really make any sense, generally; you could maybe have a Neutral character who wants to strike a specific balance e.g. between personal liberties and governmental control in a specific society, but that's about it...

If you want to look at literary inspirations, try Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series - it's about striking a Balance between Law and Chaos. (Frequently by e.g. destroying the Lords of Law and Chaos, or ending the world to remake it, but also often by championing one side against another to break its domination.) It's not very applicable to nine-alignment D&D (but potentially very applicable to three-alignment D&D), though, because these are active cosmic forces, not representations of personal morals.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-17, 11:36 AM
Wanting the king to spend money on infrastructure and things that benefit your social class is fine and not evil, but may also be at odds with some forms of good.

If he's sincerely trying to run his realm to the benefit of its inhabitants, such actions should at least score Neutral (i.e. "just doing my job, nothing special").

PersonMan
2014-01-17, 03:48 PM
What I like to do with my Neutral types is to make them fairly selfish, but not extreme enough to do something like walk away from people who need help badly without doing anything. In general, they won't do things unless it's in their best interest or they have another reason to do so. But most of them have a soft spot - a certain kind of person or situation always makes them sigh and help out after all, when one might not expect it.

Thrudd
2014-01-17, 09:46 PM
I've played several Neutral characters over the years. (I mean on the Good-Evil scale.) The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?

A neutral adventurer could be willing to take risks for a couple reasons:
A.) Profit. Dangerous tasks need to be proportionately rewarded. The goal of which might be to eventually retire luxuriously, to make a better life for family, or both.
B.) Protect that which is important to them: family, home, prized possessions.

A neutral adventurer would argue against doing anything dangerous that is not making them a profit or helping those they care about directly. They will fight to save their own home and family. They will rescue a princess or a village if they are well rewarded for it. They won't go out of their way to help the poor, rescue the helpless, or defeat evil without other motivations.

As long as they aren't taking risks and making sacrifice for the greater good without promise of reward, they are still neutral. They can even be wrangled into doing things they don't want to do out of loyalty to their friends, but will try to argue against things they feel aren't in their own best interest. Neutral can still be loyal to friends (but don't have to be).

Angel Bob
2014-01-17, 10:25 PM
Out of the six adventurers in my campaign, we have a Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil (but a pretty tempered CE, barring one unfortunate incident with some watchmen). That's 50% neutral -- and the leader and deputy are the True Neutral and Lawful Neutral, respectively, while the Good-aligned characters very rarely voice their opinions.

You might think that this group would be difficult to motivate with quest hooks; not so. Each of these characters is confident in their adventuring ability, so if they think they can handle the monsters and there's a reward proposed, they're ready and willing to undertake any quest.

One notable exception was when they wandered into an ancient temple, found it overrun with undead, and were assigned by a lingering spirit to cleanse the temple and kill the marauding necromancer; the spirit didn't give them any motivation beyond "this is the right thing to do", and they still went ahead and did it. Granted, this was probably because one of them worships the Raven Queen, and furthermore, they'd already met the necromancer and come to dislike him.

So basically, it isn't that difficult to lead a Neutral character (or even a softcore Evil character) to Good deeds. You just have to dangle ample rewards. :smallwink:

Scow2
2014-01-17, 11:02 PM
One way to play a Good-Motivated Neutral adventurer is either Temper/Impulse problems and/or Collateral damage.

Saved an orphanage and surrounding city blocks from the villain? Too bad you punched out/set one of the kids on fire because he was giving you too much ****.

Stopping the bomber on his way to blow up the city center? Maybe your chariot/cart shouldn't have run over so many pedestrians... but it was their fault they were in the way in the first place.

Clearing out the extradimensional/extraterrestrial beings that have taken over the top-secret research facility? You're not losing any sleep over the civilians/wizards/scientists/idiots that you stabbed/shot/blew up/set on fire because they jumped out and surprised you while you were taking down the aliens and monsters that were attacking your place.

hamishspence
2014-01-18, 03:34 AM
Anyone who would "Set one of the kids on fire because he was giving them too much (hassle)" should really be classed as Evil, not Neutral - no matter how altruistic they are.

There's "temper" and there's "monstrously lacking in respect for the rights of others".

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 03:52 AM
thing is, everyone considers themselves the heroes of their own story, the protagonist if you will.

a neutral adventurer is probably just as heroic as the good character, its just that their views about what is good doesn't match up with the rest of the universe, or they don't particularly try to be good in a certain way, I mean sure they do heroic stuff, they just aren't particularly devoted.

like Vaarsuvius: clearly neutral, clearly adventuring, clearly with the good guys....but not really all that focused on morality. aside from the redemption thing, which only came about because she did a really evil act, that made her want to atone for her mistake. I think its clear that neutral characters can see right from wrong, and they do lean towards good in most respects....but they're like the C grade of being moral. passing, but not really all that special or notable.

Evil meanwhile is getting an F in morality.

Scow2
2014-01-18, 09:49 AM
Anyone who would "Set one of the kids on fire because he was giving them too much (hassle)" should really be classed as Evil, not Neutral - no matter how altruistic they are.

There's "temper" and there's "monstrously lacking in respect for the rights of others".The kid wouldn't have been set on fire had he kept his hands to himself instead of filching my armed Incendiary Bombs (Which I'm only carrying and keeping armed because they keep stealing my potions, money, 10' poles, and other valuables). Or not boasted about how easily she could take me in a fight.

There's a difference between "Monstrously lacking in the respect for the rights of others" and "Tolerating the constant presences of an incessant little **** who goes out of their way to annoy me at every turn." Teaching kids to respect their elders is an important part of socialization.

Angel Bob
2014-01-18, 11:16 AM
...That is an absolutely terrifying perspective that cannot be classified as anything but Evil. :smalleek:

Scow2
2014-01-18, 11:18 AM
...That is an absolutely terrifying perspective that cannot be classified as anything but Evil. :smalleek:

It's closer to how an otherwise Good person can be Neutral by having a few Evil traits as well. Seriously, have you ever played Skyrim? Have you ever NOT wanted to beat Braith down or set the Jarl of Whiterun's kids on fire?

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 12:37 PM
It's closer to how an otherwise Good person can be Neutral by having a few Evil traits as well. Seriously, have you ever played Skyrim? Have you ever NOT wanted to beat Braith down or set the Jarl of Whiterun's kids on fire?

dude, I hate kids and even I think thats monstrous. I may hate them, but I know that they don't mean to be annoying loud little brats, and that they shouldn't be harmed over it. what the hell?

Angel Bob
2014-01-18, 12:57 PM
There's a really important distinction to be made between entertaining the idea of violence against someone you don't like and actually acting on it. You can have a Good-aligned character who really doesn't appreciate [insert person/group here], but if that person snaps and casually ignites said [person/group], and thereafter justifies their act with "They were really annoying me", they've crossed a line. :smallannoyed:

PersonMan
2014-01-18, 01:07 PM
The difference between Good and Evil is that Good doesn't set annoying punk kids on fire for annoying them, but Evil does.

It's the same old "Evil can do Good stuff, but Good can't really do Evil" kind of thing.

DnD-wise, they'd probably land in Neutral/Good/Evil based on their current situation (i.e. Annoying Kidtown they plunge to Evil, then they never see a kid for four years and get back to Good) because its alignment is mostly based on actions.

Other systems may not work so well with the G+E combination being N.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-18, 01:13 PM
DnD-wise, they'd probably land in Neutral/Good/Evil based on their current situation (i.e. Annoying Kidtown they plunge to Evil, then they never see a kid for four years and get back to Good) because it's alignment is mostly based on actions.


It's somewhat controversial whether alignment is more representative of one's moral outlook or actions.

Segev
2014-01-18, 03:42 PM
Now, now, let's think a moment: is this "lighting on fire" in the real-world, horrific scars-and-possible-death sense, or the cartoonish "soot and messed-up-hiar" sense, or the D&D "lose some hit points that are easily mended with rest or a 1st level spell" sense?

And is this "kid" a minor when you're a grown-up, or is it a fellow PC and presumed equal who's being a jerk? Paricularly if his behavior is beyond annoying and into bullying? Because one of the notable ways to bully somebody is to play a game of brinksmanship: use your capacity to do finely controlled amounts of physical and emotional harm to one you believe has less fine control to force them to endure your behavior without means of retaliating. Unless they retaliate "too much."

The thief who just steals small amounts from various PCs and screams about violent brutality if they react with violence, the fighter who shoves and grapples and noogies the wimpy wizard and calls for the whole party to expel the mad mage if he dares turn magic against the party (i.e. said fighter), the wizard who uses Prestidigitation and annoyingly targeted Mage Hands or even Magic Missiles (on, say, a water skin just before the thief drinks) and then cries out in horror at the fact that the thief would threaten harm to his tender bits...

These are bullies. And those who aren't as petty and mean have a hard time dealing with them inside social constructs that say the bullies' behavior is just slightly outside of acceptability, but are not so far out of line as to warrant the only means of true recourse the targets have.

Scow2
2014-01-18, 04:13 PM
There's a really important distinction to be made between entertaining the idea of violence against someone you don't like and actually acting on it. You can have a Good-aligned character who really doesn't appreciate [insert person/group here], but if that person snaps and casually ignites said [person/group], and thereafter justifies their act with "They were really annoying me", they've crossed a line. :smallannoyed:Yes, they do cross a line - from Good (Assuming the character normally takes extremely altruistic viewpoints and actions) into Neutral (One Evil act does not plunge one from Good into Evil).

Also, you're doing them a favor by giving them the opportunity to utilize the awesome Stop, Drop, & Roll maneuver they were taught, but will otherwise never have a chance to demonstrate in the proper context :smalltongue:

THe point of the anecdote is "This is a guy who is 99% of the time an awesome, righteous and virtuous hero - but has a few character flaws that, combined with the high stress and extreme power wielded by an Adventurer, results in enough Monstrous acts to not be Good, yet still so dominated by benevolent and altruistic goals and actions that Evil doesn't want him either."

Being Evil requires a commitment and desire to undermine Good (One frequent way of doing this is by denying the very existence of Good&Evil) that most people (Even those that commit some horrific deeds) lack.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 04:28 PM
I dunno.

even the most "chaotic good" guy who burns orphans just because they annoy him falls straight into chaotic EVIL territory to me.

morality isn't an equation. a lifetime of good deeds doesn't exactly give you an evil ticket that allows you to do one or two evil deeds without becoming evil, in fact I'd call anyone who uses that reasoning lawful evil at best, because they think they are superior to everyone around them just because they did good deeds out of the goodness of their heart, they are entitled to do be able do a few little evil deeds without it actually making them evil.

again, the fact that evil characters can do good acts but good characters can't do evil acts, tilts neutral in the direction of good. because morality isn't an equation, saying that a character is flawed and that he commits a few evil deed but is balanced by a lifetime of good ones, sounds too much like that psychotic neutral reasoning where you save an orphan then kill another orphan "for balance".

morality is not an equation, because its not about theory, or a theory. morality is a thing of spirit, and you have to do it in the spirit of the thing, its a mountain that you have to always climb upwards for the sake of climbing upwards, to willingly fall is to fall all the way down- once you have fell, you must climb all the way back up again. good is always trying to climb upward, evil jumps into the abyss, and neutral is content staying where it is on the mountain, not doing anything in particular to improve or debase themselves.

Scow2
2014-01-18, 04:39 PM
I dunno.

even the most "chaotic good" guy who burns orphans just because they annoy him falls straight into chaotic EVIL territory to me.

morality isn't an equation. a lifetime of good deeds doesn't exactly give you an evil ticket that allows you to do one or two evil deeds without becoming evil, in fact I'd call anyone who uses that reasoning lawful evil at best, because they think they are superior to everyone around them just because they did good deeds out of the goodness of their heart, they are entitled to do be able do a few little evil deeds without it actually making them evil.

again, the fact that evil characters can do good acts but good characters can't do evil acts, tilts neutral in the direction of good. because morality isn't an equation, saying that a character is flawed and that he commits a few evil deed but is balanced by a lifetime of good ones, sounds too much like that psychotic neutral reasoning where you save an orphan then kill another orphan "for balance".

morality is not an equation, because its not about theory, or a theory. morality is a thing of spirit, and you have to do it in the spirit of the thing, its a mountain that you have to always climb upwards for the sake of climbing upwards, to willingly fall is to fall all the way down- once you have fell, you must climb all the way back up again. good is always trying to climb upward, evil jumps into the abyss, and neutral is content staying where it is on the mountain, not doing anything in particular to improve or debase themselves.Actually, alignment IS an equation. Sucks to be the victim, but demonizing someone who's a hero to hundreds of others isn't much better. I'm tempted to use a real-world example or two, but I'd rather not.

They're own alignment isn't any concern of theirs. The thought process isn't "Because I've done X amount of Good, I can do Y amount of Evil." (Though they sort of can, as long as the Evil doesn't eclipse the good.) You're focusing WAY too much on the Evil side of the spectrum.

Also, to use your own analogy, Neutral isn't just "Those content to stay where they are" - it's also for those who are constantly trying to climb the mountain, but keep slipping/falling down it.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 04:50 PM
Actually, alignment IS an equation. Sucks to be the victim, but demonizing someone who's a hero to hundreds of others isn't much better. I'm tempted to use a real-world example or two, but I'd rather not.

They're own alignment isn't any concern of theirs. The thought process isn't "Because I've done X amount of Good, I can do Y amount of Evil." (Though they sort of can, as long as the Evil doesn't eclipse the good.) You're focusing WAY too much on the Evil side of the spectrum.

Also, to use your own analogy, Neutral isn't just "Those content to stay where they are" - it's also for those who are constantly trying to climb the mountain, but keep slipping/falling down it.

those who keep slipping and falling down are those who are struggling to not be evil and failing, not neutral.

and there is no other side of the spectrum to look at, if your good, your golden, if your neutral, eh, no problem, your okay. its evil thats the problem. if your not a part of the solution....

Angel Bob
2014-01-18, 05:18 PM
Here's an idea: let's contrast two examples of Neutral characters who both committed at least one horrendously Evil act in their lifetimes.

One is the example you provided: a righteous hero and ideal role model for the vast majority of his/her life, up until some random orphan starts relentlessly pestering him/her, to which he/she responds by lighting the friggin' kid on fire.

The other is Vaarsuvius, who, interestingly enough, is also ambiguously gendered. Though she/he has always been condescending and arrogant, especially to non-elves, she/he has never been so nasty as to be considered evil. As a result of her/his pathological drive to be "the best" at arcane magic, she/he spends months without trancing, raising her/his stress levels while reducing her/his ability to think rationally. After a few months of this, she/he is forced into an exceedingly stressful situation where the lives of her/his children are threatened by a dragon. A few poor decisions later, and she/he has wiped out the dragon's entire family line, killing 25% of the black dragon population (and Giant knows how many of other races) in cold blood.

However, Vaarsuvius and Mr./Ms. Childburner differ in two main categories: 1, their state of mind when they committed violent crimes; 2, their responses to their horrific actions. Vaarsuvius made poor decisions after months of trance deprivation, addling her/his thought processes (though not enough to remove the blame entirely from her/him). Once Vaarsuvius regained her/his senses, she/he felt remorse, and with the aid of Blackwing, attempted to keep her/himself from using wanton violence. After the full horror of her/his deed was revealed, she/he was consumed by crippling guilt, spending hours sobbing and moping about how badly she/he messed up. She/he then emerged from that self-reflection with a changed worldview, attempting to avoid unnecessary bloodshed whenever possible (notably, in the casterfight with Laurin Shattersmith). Vaarsuvius, despite not being Good, recognizes that her/his actions were abhorrent and monstrous, and -- this is the crucial part -- she/he feels really bad about that.

By contrast, Mr./Ms. Childburner, as described in your example, made a conscious decision to set the orphan aflame, while suffering no debilitating mental conditions other than being frustrated by an obnoxious child. Even more damningly, in the aftermath of this vile act, he/she felt no remorse, and indeed found this to be a reasonable punishment for bugging the heck out of him/her. See the point of this little exercise?

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 05:24 PM
yea to me, Vaarsuvius is actually neutral, and is a person who was evil for a time, but then jumped back to neutral when she realized the consequences of her actions and that she had to atone for them- that even for a neutral character, this act wasn't ok, that even if she will never be a shining paragon of good or whatever- that she still has to atone and make right what she has wronged.

Miss Childburner is evil. no remorse, no guilt nothing, thats evil and the character has become evil.

thank you Angel Bob :smallsmile:

Angel Bob
2014-01-18, 06:51 PM
Actually, all three of the examples provided by Scow2 of "characters who would otherwise be Good but are Neutral" are actually disgustingly evil. One was racing to save the day and ran over several pedestrians, and shrugged it off with "they were in my way". Another was clearing out some alien monsters from a research lab and was spooked by some scientists popping out from nowhere, so he/she shot the scientists because "they were obstructing my mission". :smalleek:

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of Evil on Scow2's part. Evil isn't "a commitment and desire to undermine Good that most people lack", as he seems to believe -- Evil is a fundamental lack of respect for other people's rights to life, liberty, and happiness, which was demonstrated by all three of Scow2's example. To use another OotS example, Belkar doesn't have any particular desire to undo the Order's goals, and commitment has never been his thing; his problem is that (prior to character development) he can't really grasp the notion that other people deserve to live. He's still Evil, undeniably so -- anyone could tell you that. Except, apparently, Scow2, whose qualifiers, as mentioned, would ping Belkar as some form of Neutral. :smallannoyed:

Lord Raziere
2014-01-18, 09:01 PM
so perhaps Good, Neutral and Evil are more defined by recognizing goodness in the first place?

like Good focuses on goodness, Neutral notices it but isn't focused on it, and Evil doesn't recognize when its being evil at all?

because while Good seems to be incredibly aware of being good and trying to do good, Evil doesn't seem to be aware, they just do things without thinking or caring. Neutral recognizes good, but has no particular devotion to it.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 12:52 AM
Here's the situation in which Pyro McBurninator decided to torch a kid.

Pyro McBurninator is a temperamental Sorcerer with strong fire powers.
He's a cat person, and dislikes dogs to the point that if they get too close, he kicks them away to teach them to fear and keep their distance from them (Yes, he kicks puppies).

One day, Pyro The Burninator is kicking back in a tavern after a day of adventuring (Saving the baroness' daughter from the evil Ogre Mage, and declining the reward)

He hears the orphanage is on fire! He wastes no time leaping to his feet to go save the day - but though he's a Fire mage, and his spell will allow him to endure the heat, he's not yet able to actually be fire-resistant yet. He's also at risk of asphyxiation.
By the time he gets to the Orphanage (Despite his incredible speed), it's engulfed in a blazing inferno, with many kids still trapped inside.
He rescues the kids as swiftly as he can, suffering severe burns and nearly asphyxiating in the blaze. He puts up with a lot of hassle trying to find the kids and talk them into coming with him - he doesn't hold their fear against them. But Richard Mc****head instead taunts Pyro for taking so long, and laughs at the sorcerer for claiming to be a fire mage but not immune to the fire. Pyro tells him to shut up, and argues to get the little twerp to get out.

Although he's severely injured, he manages to get all the kids to safety - but Susie Pigtails is distraught because her young puppy is still trapped in the blaze, and too young to have a chance of escaping on his own. Richard ****head, on the other hand, mocks Little Timmy Crippled for needing Pyro to save him because he can't walk on his own, and griping at Pyro for taking the effort to save Little Timmy instead of letting him burn to death. Pyro cusses out Richard and conjures fire as a warning, then storms back into the fire (At severe risk to himself) to find Susie's puppy, despite his own aversion to the animal.

Unfortunately, he's a bit too late, and while the animal's alive when he rescues it, it asphyxiates in Suzie's arms, leaving her to be terribly distraught. Richard then torments her for being such a sissy about being bent out of shape over the death of her beloved pet, then mocks and cusses out Pyro the Burninator for bothering to go save the puppy.

Pyro gets sick of Richard's ****, sets him on fire (To the rejoicing of the other kids sick of Richard's constant bullying, needling, tormenting, and abusing his protections whenever someone tried to do anything about it), with his only regret being not letting the Orphanage fire do the job for him.

Years later, after many more adventures and missteps (Ranging from empowering a Slave Rebellion, to redeeming an entire species of Fiends), he is killed sacrificing himself by going up in a blazing inferno to protect the people of Foresttown from being burned, massacred, and pillaged by the invading unstoppable armies of the Conquering Empire of HorribleEvil - and several of the citizens got caught in the massive blast radius of Pyro's infernal emancipation into the greatest blast of Arcane Napalm ever seen (Completely destroying the invading force and crippling the Empire's ability to invade other lands for the rest of its existence), but not as many as would have died and suffered had Pyro not been around (And there were no other heroes in the area)

As for the guy shooting civilians in the lab - I'm talking about These Guys. (http://xkcd.com/53/)

If the civilian-shooting, kid-igniting, and pedestrian-hitting were the ONLY traits of the character, yeah, he'd be evil. But, that's not ALL he's done. (Had he not run over those pedestrians, he could have lost the trail of the Bad Guy racing to blow up the town square, poison the town's well, and kill off most of the town)


so perhaps Good, Neutral and Evil are more defined by recognizing goodness in the first place?

like Good focuses on goodness, Neutral notices it but isn't focused on it, and Evil doesn't recognize when its being evil at all?

because while Good seems to be incredibly aware of being good and trying to do good, Evil doesn't seem to be aware, they just do things without thinking or caring. Neutral recognizes good, but has no particular devotion to it.By this standard, our theoretical murderhobo "hero" is still Good - he's aware of and trying to do Good - he just tends to royally screw up when trying to achieve the greater good (Which is the greater good? "Save (Almost) everyone in the town" or "Not run over the guy who can't get out of the way of two wildly careening chariots"?)

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 01:10 AM
Here's the situation in which Pyro McBurninator decided to torch a kid.

Pyro McBurninator is a temperamental Sorcerer with strong fire powers.
He's a cat person, and dislikes dogs to the point that if they get too close, he kicks them away to teach them to fear and keep their distance from them (Yes, he kicks puppies).

*facepalm*


One day, Pyro The Burninator is kicking back in a tavern after a day of adventuring (Saving the baroness' daughter from the evil Ogre Mage, and declining the reward)

He hears the orphanage is on fire! He wastes no time leaping to his feet to go save the day - but though he's a Fire mage, and his spell will allow him to endure the heat, he's not yet able to actually be fire-resistant yet. He's also at risk of asphyxiation.
By the time he gets to the Orphanage (Despite his incredible speed), it's engulfed in a blazing inferno, with many kids still trapped inside.
He rescues the kids as swiftly as he can, suffering severe burns and nearly asphyxiating in the blaze. He puts up with a lot of hassle trying to find the kids and talk them into coming with him - he doesn't hold their fear against them. But Richard Mc****head instead taunts Pyro for taking so long, and laughs at the sorcerer for claiming to be a fire mage but not immune to the fire. Pyro tells him to shut up, and argues to get the little twerp to get out.


childish stupidity is no excuse to not be moral.


Although he's severely injured, he manages to get all the kids to safety - but Susie Pigtails is distraught because her young puppy is still trapped in the blaze, and too young to have a chance of escaping on his own. Richard ****head, on the other hand, mocks Little Timmy Crippled for needing Pyro to save him because he can't walk on his own, and griping at Pyro for taking the effort to save Little Timmy instead of letting him burn to death. Pyro cusses out Richard and conjures fire as a warning, then storms back into the fire (At severe risk to himself) to find Susie's puppy, despite his own aversion to the animal.


a child being a stupid jerk is no excuse.


Unfortunately, he's a bit too late, and while the animal's alive when he rescues it, it asphyxiates in Suzie's arms, leaving her to be terribly distraught. Richard then torments her for being such a sissy about being bent out of shape over the death of her beloved pet, then mocks and cusses out Pyro the Burninator for bothering to go save the puppy.

Pyro gets sick of Richard's ****, sets him on fire (To the rejoicing of the other kids sick of Richard's constant bullying, needling, tormenting, and abusing his protections whenever someone tried to do anything about it), with his only regret being not letting the Orphanage fire do the job for him.

so not only is pyro evil, all the other children are as well? must've been a pretty sucky orphanage. still not the right thing to do. being a **** =/= evil.


Years later, after many more adventures and missteps (Ranging from empowering a Slave Rebellion, to redeeming an entire species of Fiends), he is killed sacrificing himself by going up in a blazing inferno to protect the people of Foresttown from being burned, massacred, and pillaged by the invading unstoppable armies of the Conquering Empire of HorribleEvil - and several of the citizens got caught in the massive blast radius of Pyro's infernal emancipation into the greatest blast of Arcane Napalm ever seen (Completely destroying the invading force and crippling the Empire's ability to invade other lands for the rest of its existence), but not as many as would have died and suffered had Pyro not been around (And there were no other heroes in the area)

your point?


As for the guy shooting civilians in the lab - I'm talking about These Guys. (http://xkcd.com/53/)

If the civilian-shooting, kid-igniting, and pedestrian-hitting were the ONLY traits of the character, yeah, he'd be evil. But, that's not ALL he's done. (Had he not run over those pedestrians, he could have lost the trail of the Bad Guy racing to blow up the town square, poison the town's well, and kill off most of the town)

By this standard, our theoretical murderhobo "hero" is still Good - he's aware of and trying to do Good - he just tends to royally screw up when trying to achieve the greater good (Which is the greater good? "Save (Almost) everyone in the town" or "Not run over the guy who can't get out of the way of two wildly careening chariots"?)

an evil guy who saves the world, is still evil. just because he thinks himself as a hero, and people like him, doesn't make him good.

because y'know who else would approve of burning orphans? Black Mage. Belkar.
Richard from Looking For Group. hint: if you do something that only these guys would approve of? YOUR VERY PROBABLY EVIL.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 01:15 AM
How is someone who puts their own life on the line regularly - with no expectation of reward - and eventually sacrifices himself to save others "Evil"?

And it's "Evil" to rejoice when someone who has spent their entire life tormenting you gets his comeuppance? (Would it change anything if Richard's bullying had driven another orphan to suicide?)

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 01:30 AM
How is someone who puts their own life on the line regularly - with no expectation of reward - and eventually sacrifices himself to save others "Evil"?

And it's "Evil" to rejoice when someone who has spent their entire life tormenting you gets his comeuppance? (Would it change anything if Richard's bullying had driven another orphan to suicide?)

morality is not solely owned by the utilitarians. there are acts that are unforgivable. that forever stain one if one feels no remorse and make no attempt to redeem oneself from. you might be right that alignment is an equation, but who said that the utilitarians were doing the math? in retribution of childish behavior perpetrated by one who could've been taught a better way, who was still in his developing years, with potential to grow up to be a better person if taught correctly- the character decided to burn them painfully, giving them a painful, agonizing death just because they were feeling impatient, when there was at least one better way- knock the child out, at least then he would not have had to die.

when its children that should be, by rights all scared out of their minds of almost dying, and seeing one of their number just die a painful death by fire? dude, your positing the most screwed up orphanage ever at this rate. the problem child should definitely be separated to be put into special psychological care, and the rest evaluated, because all of this seriously not normal behavior, especially if a child suicide is involved.

but none of this really excuses burning a child out of impatience. mostly because there is no excuse.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 01:41 AM
I take it you don't know many children, then? (It's also why I'm saying the person is Neutral, not Good. - Also, there are a lot worse acts people commit on a regular basis that they just ignore. By your standard, everyone is evil.)

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 01:49 AM
I take it you don't know many children, then?

I do not. I hate children remember? I don't spend much time in their company. regardless, the action is inexcusable. I would send Pyro to the lower planes for that action without a second thought, regardless of all else that he has done. it is morally wrong to kill someone just because they're jerks. saving the world does not balance the scales, saving the world merely means that there is world where he can be properly punished. that is all. if he truly is willing to give his life without any reward, then he should understand that includes the rewards of a happy afterlife, if he does not deserve any.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 02:07 AM
I have never said Pyro is Good - though both of your standards have him as both Good and Evil at once.

He's Neutral.

Evil requires a degree of selfishness, or desire to cause evil for Evil's sake.

Furthermore, Pyro here isn't "Saving the world" - which implies saving a world he's part of. He's saving the worlds of people he doesn't know, and taking 'unnecessary risks' to help others: He wouldn't have been adversely affected had the Empire stomped and burned Foresttown to the ground and completely subjugated his citizens. He had no stake in the Slave Rebellion he saved and aided. The Rakshasa Redemption didn't concern him beyond "It's the right resolution to the conflict".

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 03:42 AM
I have never said Pyro is Good - though both of your standards have him as both Good and Evil at once.

He's Neutral.

Evil requires a degree of selfishness, or desire to cause evil for Evil's sake.

Furthermore, Pyro here isn't "Saving the world" - which implies saving a world he's part of. He's saving the worlds of people he doesn't know, and taking 'unnecessary risks' to help others: He wouldn't have been adversely affected had the Empire stomped and burned Foresttown to the ground and completely subjugated his citizens. He had no stake in the Slave Rebellion he saved and aided. The Rakshasa Redemption didn't concern him beyond "It's the right resolution to the conflict".

we just went over how evil is not that, stop putting it in such a narrow definition please.

none of that has anything to do with the fact that he burned a child out of pure impatience when he could've reasonably knocked him out instead if he was being a problem. Evil. the fact that he rescued all the others does not excuse it, the fact that he went on to do various other deeds does not excuse it, no matter how selfless he thinks he is being.

there are countless villains who think they are morally right to do something extreme and "save the world" by taking "risks" to "help" others, like say forcing everyone into a hive mind or rule the world and establish peace by force through nuclear weapons- yet I wouldn't consider them good or even neutral. they are Evil, for they do not respect the rights of others in doing so.

just because one thinks it is morally right to burn that child, doesn't mean they are correct in that thinking. it is inexcusable and unforgivable. even for neutral, and gets you an Evil. just as chaotic neutrals don't get to do anything they want, all the other neutrals don't get to defy all moral laws just because they are neutral.

Pyro is Evil. your arguments sound too much like True Neutral psychotic balance arguments for me to take them seriously:
"oh he is clearly true neutral because he has a mix of pure evil and pure good things he does and it all balances it out, and for that he is totally allowed to like, kill one guy as long as he saves ten people first, and keep his alignment. True Neutral: because doing enough good deeds earns you free passes to do bad ones, the scope of said good deeds totally matter to how good they are!"

hamishspence
2014-01-19, 05:40 AM
Evil requires a degree of selfishness, or desire to cause evil for Evil's sake.

Burning someone to death because "they were obnoxious to me" is pretty selfish- the motivation is the character's own offended ego.




none of that has anything to do with the fact that he burned a child out of pure impatience when he could've reasonably knocked him out instead if he was being a problem. Evil. the fact that he rescued all the others does not excuse it, the fact that he went on to do various other deeds does not excuse it, no matter how selfless he thinks he is being.

there are countless villains who think they are morally right to do something extreme and "save the world" by taking "risks" to "help" others, like say forcing everyone into a hive mind or rule the world and establish peace by force through nuclear weapons- yet I wouldn't consider them good or even neutral. they are Evil, for they do not respect the rights of others in doing so.

just because one thinks it is morally right to burn that child, doesn't mean they are correct in that thinking. it is inexcusable and unforgivable. even for neutral, and gets you an Evil. just as chaotic neutrals don't get to do anything they want, all the other neutrals don't get to defy all moral laws just because they are neutral.

I've been raising the same sort of questions for the last 5 or so years-

"Can a person be both genuinely altruistic and genuinely sadistic or murderous- and if so- which takes precedence when assessing them?"

And my view hasn't changed much- yes- they can- and yes- cruelty is the mark of an Evil character. Altruism is not a trait that it is "impossible" for an Evil character to have.

PersonMan
2014-01-19, 07:30 AM
Evil requires a degree of selfishness, or desire to cause evil for Evil's sake.

No, it doesn't. It's Evil to cut your way through a line instead of waiting, whether it's for a selfish reason (I don't like waiting) or a non-selfish one (My friend wants this now).

Under your definition, someone can murder and torture people for their entire life, but as long as they aren't doing it for Evil's sake or for selfish reasons, they're Neutral. I don't think that's an accurate definition.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 09:12 AM
No, it doesn't. It's Evil to cut your way through a line instead of waiting, whether it's for a selfish reason (I don't like waiting) or a non-selfish one (My friend wants this now).

Under your definition, someone can murder and torture people for their entire life, but as long as they aren't doing it for Evil's sake or for selfish reasons, they're Neutral. I don't think that's an accurate definition.If they murder and torture for the sake of Good and benefit of innocents and others, they end up in Neutral, not Evil or Good - They get too sticky and offensive to BOTH sides of the moral coin.


Burning someone to death because "they were obnoxious to me" is pretty selfish- the motivation is the character's own offended ego.



I've been raising the same sort of questions for the last 5 or so years-

"Can a person be both genuinely altruistic and genuinely sadistic or murderous- and if so- which takes precedence when assessing them?"

And my view hasn't changed much- yes- they can- and yes- cruelty is the mark of an Evil character. Altruism is not a trait that it is "impossible" for an Evil character to have.Altruism is a strictly Good trait, while Cruelty is Strictly Evil. If one possesses a greater abundance or balance of both, they're Neutral.


we just went over how evil is not that, stop putting it in such a narrow definition please.

none of that has anything to do with the fact that he burned a child out of pure impatience when he could've reasonably knocked him out instead if he was being a problem. Evil. the fact that he rescued all the others does not excuse it, the fact that he went on to do various other deeds does not excuse it, no matter how selfless he thinks he is being.Which is why he's Not Good. But, had he merely knocked the kid out, he would have deprived the kid of a chance to save himself, and it would have been inflicting additional punishment, instead of merely revoking the punk's salvation. It wasn't like he wasn't warned. (And, knocking him out all but guarantees the kid has long-term damage. Setting him on fire gives him the chance to save himself)


there are countless villains who think they are morally right to do something extreme and "save the world" by taking "risks" to "help" others, like say forcing everyone into a hive mind or rule the world and establish peace by force through nuclear weapons- yet I wouldn't consider them good or even neutral. they are Evil, for they do not respect the rights of others in doing so.But that's not what this guy is doing. What he's doing is not disrespecting the rights of those who will die if he doesn't intervene, even if his intervention is more destructive and haphazard. Killing one to save many balances out to Neutral, not Evil - the lives he saves are not worth less than the lives he takes. And unlike the Hive Mind example, he doesn't trample the rights of those he "saves" (The "Take over the world" one is trickier, because the only right he's denying others is their "right" to murder their neighbors just for looking different and being somewhere else)


just because one thinks it is morally right to burn that child, doesn't mean they are correct in that thinking. it is inexcusable and unforgivable. even for neutral, and gets you an Evil. just as chaotic neutrals don't get to do anything they want, all the other neutrals don't get to defy all moral laws just because they are neutral.Morality has "Guidelines", not "Laws". There are more alignments out there than "Lawful Good".


Pyro is Evil. your arguments sound too much like True Neutral psychotic balance arguments for me to take them seriously:
"oh he is clearly true neutral because he has a mix of pure evil and pure good things he does and it all balances it out, and for that he is totally allowed to like, kill one guy as long as he saves ten people first, and keep his alignment. True Neutral: because doing enough good deeds earns you free passes to do bad ones, the scope of said good deeds totally matter to how good they are!"It's not "Psychotic Balance" - but the lives of the people he saves are not worth less than the lives of the people he takes. And when it comes to great deeds, they DO balance out. Most people just don't have the capacity for great deeds of good (And, by your definitions, absolutely everyone in a position of power is Evil)

The problem with "Psychotic Balance" is that it implies the character MUST commit evil acts to remain Neutral, or that the Good acts are taken solely for the sake of "being able to commit evil deeds", instead of the reality where they commit Good deeds for the sake of Good and Others, and commit Evil Deeds for themselves or the Greater Good (Which lands in Neutral or Non-Exalted Good, depending on how "Greater" that good actually is - and if it's not, it's Evil), and the pieces fall all over the place and need to be put in the right buckets.

We brought up V earlier in the thread - sure, v's remorseful over the Black Dragons she killed - but do you think she cares about YukYuk or anyone who annoyed her and got Explosive Runes to the face?

Coidzor
2014-01-19, 09:17 AM
Honestly this is why anyone that one rescues should just be rendered unconscious for easier handling.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 09:25 AM
Honestly this is why anyone that one rescues should just be rendered unconscious for easier handling.

Doing so risks tremendous long-term damage to the person.

Angel Bob
2014-01-19, 11:07 AM
No, it doesn't. It's Evil to cut your way through a line instead of waiting, whether it's for a selfish reason (I don't like waiting) or a non-selfish one (My friend wants this now)..

Actually, I'd define that as more Chaotic than Evil. It's rude, sure, but it's not causing any real harm besides frustration. But that's beside the point.

The fact of the matter is that for a child-burner to be considered even Neutral rather than Evil, they must understand that what they did was wrong. They must feel remorse for having done the wrong thing, and preferably try to make amends. Pyro here doesn't do any of that -- sure, he lived a life of altruism, but he never once seemed to consider burning an annoying child to death to be a bad thing. (Incidentally, although the other kids may have hated Richard, watching someone burn to death and taking pleasure from it is utterly depraved, even by children's standards.)

It's the same with Jordan Trigger-Happy; if he/she'd been horrified that he/she accidentally shot the scientists, instead of blaming them for their own deaths, a case could be made for Neutral, or even Good, with an unfortunate tendency to pull the trigger when stressed out and surprised.

(Of course, Chariot McRunover has no excuse for callously running over people to get somewhere and then claiming that "they got in my way". Now, if there was an unfortunate accident in which at least one party wasn't following the rules of the road, and McRunover was distressed and horrified to have caused such pain, then this would be more forgivable. As the example was presented, however, it seems that McRunover decided the most efficient route to stopping the bad guy was barreling through the town square full speed, without even a yell of warning to the pedestrians.)

See, that's the thing: each of Scow2's examples have killed, or at least caused grievous harm, in varying degrees of cold blood. Trigger-Happy's crime is at the "horrible accident" side of the spectrum; Pyro's falls pretty clearly into "premeditated" territory; and McRunover's case is a little murky. But though some of them might have an "excuse" for their behavior, each of them commits a crime worse than the initial one: refusing to accept responsibility for their deeds, and blaming the victim. Pyro says Richard deserved it because he was an *******; Trigger-Happy blames the scientists for jumping out and spooking him; and McRunover holds that the civilians got in his way. This is one damning reason why I would consider all three Evil: because even after committing horrible atrocities, none of them even considered that they could be at fault.

Guancyto
2014-01-19, 11:28 AM
Sorry, are we injecting 21st century desk-chair morality about the wrongness of violence and injury and conquest and the inherent value of life into a game about pseudo-medieval hobos killing people and taking their stuff, where alignment is mostly about what side you're on?

I just want to make sure this is a thing we are doing.

(Because guy who is a huge prick to people who piss him off and saves the day for no personal benefit is Good, even with the lack of angst about accidentally killing people.

Not a good person. But a Good one. They're not the same thing. Not now, not ever.)

Scow2
2014-01-19, 12:06 PM
The fact of the matter is that for a child-burner to be considered even Neutral rather than Evil, they must understand that what they did was wrong. They must feel remorse for having done the wrong thing, and preferably try to make amends. Pyro here doesn't do any of that -- sure, he lived a life of altruism, but he never once seemed to consider burning an annoying child to death to be a bad thing. (Incidentally, although the other kids may have hated Richard, watching someone burn to death and taking pleasure from it is utterly depraved, even by children's standards.)Welcome to Childhood - they're all a bunch of devious, sick monsters that need 18 years of socialization before they're considered tolerable.

It's the same with Jordan Trigger-Happy; if he/she'd been horrified that he/she accidentally shot the scientists, instead of blaming them for their own deaths, a case could be made for Neutral, or even Good, with an unfortunate tendency to pull the trigger when stressed out and surprised.


(Of course, Chariot McRunover has no excuse for callously running over people to get somewhere and then claiming that "they got in my way". Now, if there was an unfortunate accident in which at least one party wasn't following the rules of the road, and McRunover was distressed and horrified to have caused such pain, then this would be more forgivable. As the example was presented, however, it seems that McRunover decided the most efficient route to stopping the bad guy was barreling through the town square full speed, without even a yell of warning to the pedestrians.)What makes you think he's not yelling warnings? But he doesn't see the value in sparing the lives of those who can't go out of the way if it means everyone else dies because the Villain gets away and kills everyone. Also, the first chariot running through with the poison and bombs and villains was a warning as well.


See, that's the thing: each of Scow2's examples have killed, or at least caused grievous harm, in varying degrees of cold blood. Trigger-Happy's crime is at the "horrible accident" side of the spectrum; Pyro's falls pretty clearly into "premeditated" territory; and McRunover's case is a little murky. But though some of them might have an "excuse" for their behavior, each of them commits a crime worse than the initial one: refusing to accept responsibility for their deeds, and blaming the victim. Pyro says Richard deserved it because he was an *******; Trigger-Happy blames the scientists for jumping out and spooking him; and McRunover holds that the civilians got in his way. This is one damning reason why I would consider all three Evil: because even after committing horrible atrocities, none of them even considered that they could be at fault.If refusing to accept responsibility for their deeds, or if these incidents were the sole defining aspects of their lives, they'd be Evil - but there's a lot more to them than that.

If the three had any remorse or recognition that what they'd done was wrong, they'd be "Good", not "Neutral".

There are three factors that determine a person's alignment:
1. What cause do they champion (In this case, all three champion "Good", but fail to maintain all its tennents at all times, occassionally outright dipping into "Evil")

2. At the end of their lives, is the world better off for their presence, worse off, or about the same? (In all three cases, it's better off for everyone except the few who ended up on the wrong side of the hero - All but one of the orphans were saved, with their torment at the hands of Richard ended, the town attacked by the Mad Bomber+Poisoner survives(Aside from the worst injured of those run over by McRunover), instead of everyone dying an explosive and horrific death. In the case of the McShooty, the world is saved from an Alien Invasion, and the people aren't enslaved, put into people-pods, then turned into human slushies. ...and those are just the immediate results. These characters have a lifetime of heroic deeds.

3. Recognition of Failure - this is the only one the three fail, and why they end up Neutral instead of Good.

There are more ways to be "Good" other than being "Exalted Good". The alignments require commitment (intentional or not) to the spread of the influence of the cosmic force. A person who's acts directly spread Good throughout the world more than Evil CANNOT be Evil (Note - It must be direct. Others spreading good as a reaction to his Evil does not count).

Coidzor
2014-01-19, 12:32 PM
Doing so risks tremendous long-term damage to the person.

Depends on the system and the way you render them unconscious, I believe.

Unless this was a pun on "render (http://makezine.com/projects/how-to-render-fat/)." XD

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 12:40 PM
Doing so risks tremendous long-term damage to the person.

Because killing them is so much safer, in fact why not just kill them first? no need to save them, they're now going to their happy afterlives! and I totally did out of the goodness of my heart, so I'm totally neutral.

Guancyto
2014-01-19, 12:44 PM
Oh, also, whoever said that Neutral people will avoid dangerous things unless they can derive benefit from them has never seen anyone do something tremendously dangerous and stupid just because they can.

Neutral people, on the whole, are basically just people with all the weirdness and messiness that comes with that. They're motivated by a spectacularly diverse array of things, most of which don't really even make sense except in the heat of the moment.

You shouldn't ever have to justify why your character is Neutral (unless you want an alignment switch to be part of your character arc, or unless you're a munchkin trying to be Evil yet not get hit by Holy Smite).

Also, Raziere, you're doing that thing where you get emotional and yell at people. Can you take a step back, please? :smallfrown:

Scow2
2014-01-19, 12:52 PM
Because killing them is so much safer, in fact why not just kill them first? no need to save them, they're now going to their happy afterlives! and I totally did out of the goodness of my heart, so I'm totally neutral.Only the ones that get overly annoying are at any risk of being minorly-ignited (Such as small clothing or hair fire, Which can be extinguished/will extinguish itself before anything worse than a 1st-degree burn is caused), and only the worst get outright immolated - and WILL suffer long-term damage(And get a lesson in humility), but only because they did something to deserve it, and can still Stop, Drop+Roll before he dies.

Being knocked unconscious WILL cause long-term damage (And if its' a system without long term damage... well, Fire only deals HP damage that heals normally over time.)

Lord Raziere
2014-01-19, 01:00 PM
Also, Raziere, you're doing that thing where you get emotional and yell at people. Can you take a step back, please? :smallfrown:

....sigh....fine. I guess I don't know when its appropriate to quit on forums or something....

Scow2
2014-01-19, 01:18 PM
Oh, also, whoever said that Neutral people will avoid dangerous things unless they can derive benefit from them has never seen anyone do something tremendously dangerous and stupid just because they can.

Neutral people, on the whole, are basically just people with all the weirdness and messiness that comes with that. They're motivated by a spectacularly diverse array of things, most of which don't really even make sense except in the heat of the moment.Right, and when you give a person power (Such as by having them become adventurers), that person's traits, quirks, flaws, foibles, and personality become amplified - and he's NOT under any compulsion to undergo a 'redemption arc' or to learn the appropriate use of his power (That would indicate an Alignment Change toward Good)

Some wrongs get righted, some rights get wronged.
Filled moral functions are enforced, and moral gaps remain empty.
Some people get hurt, others get helped.
Some people get killed and deserve it, some people get killed and don't deserve it (Life's not fair, but is still "Neutral")
Some people are saved, including those the world may be better off not saving.

"Stupid Neutral" is an awkward diversion/interpretation of "Druid Neutral", which posits the Chaotic Evil Orc has just as much right to exist as the Lawful Good dwarves, and he's under no compulsion to stop the Orcs from exercising their right to rape, pillage, and burn (And yes, they do have that right according to nature)... nor the Dwarves' right to defend themselves against the orc's depravity and create a society that frowns on evil - and IS compelled to take action to keep either race from absolutely eliminating the other, because they both have equal right to exist.

"Balance Neutral" people recognize that "Cosmic Good" is just as hostile to Life-As-We-Know-It as "Cosmic Evil" is, by excluding more than 60% of the world because they don't live up to its impossible standards.

A person is Neutral if their acts balance between Good and Evil in frequency and severity (Good people don't like to acknowledge this), because they have a right to choose to act as they will, and leave the Cosmic forces trying to figure out who's side they are on.

Evil WILL NOT tolerate someone who performs unequivocally selfless and good deeds that significantly weaken itself, just as Good will not tolerate someone who commits atrocities.

Guancyto
2014-01-19, 02:07 PM
Eh.

Truth be told, as punchy as what I said earlier sounds in my head, the presence and nature of Cosmic Good really depends on the setting, so it's not really useful to make blanket statements about it.

Not only that, but actual "Balance Neutral" requires the sort of cosmic perspective that comes with being the wizard ubermensch a la Mordenkainen and is thus pretty useless for 99.9999% of player characters.

hamishspence
2014-01-19, 04:40 PM
Evil isn't "a commitment and desire to undermine Good that most people lack", as he seems to believe -- Evil is a fundamental lack of respect for other people's rights to life, liberty, and happiness

This sums it up pretty well.


Evil WILL NOT tolerate someone who performs unequivocally selfless and good deeds that significantly weaken itself, just as Good will not tolerate someone who commits atrocities.

"Cosmic forces" don't have the power to make choices "I won't tolerate this kind of person being on my side" - they don't have intelligence in that sense.

A person doesn't cease to be Evil merely because they do Good deeds now and again.

PersonMan
2014-01-19, 04:43 PM
Actually, I'd define that as more Chaotic than Evil. It's rude, sure, but it's not causing any real harm besides frustration. But that's beside the point.

Ah, right, sorry, I mean "cut through" as in "take out your sword and cut people down", not "step in front of others".

Angel Bob
2014-01-19, 05:54 PM
Ah, right, sorry, I mean "cut through" as in "take out your sword and cut people down", not "step in front of others".

Ah. Well, then, that probably would be Evil, yes. :smalleek:

:smalltongue:

veti
2014-01-19, 06:22 PM
It's closer to how an otherwise Good person can be Neutral by having a few Evil traits as well. Seriously, have you ever played Skyrim? Have you ever NOT wanted to beat Braith down or set the Jarl of Whiterun's kids on fire?

Braith is mildly annoying, but she'll grow out of it. She can easily be talked out of bullying that little wimp Lars. And the Jarl of Whiterun's kids are about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-19, 09:11 PM
about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

That's my main beef with the thieves guild and dark brotherhood questlines too. I witness firsthand the depravity they routinely sink to, have a change of heart, decide to destroy their organization from the inside, or at least report their lair's location and lead a squad of law enforcement to bust them... only to find out I can't. Because Bethesda wants me to follow the rails, and no other reason. Even when NPCs tell me how bad a person my character is for continuing those questlines, there's no option to quit.

Scow2
2014-01-19, 11:09 PM
Braith is mildly annoying, but she'll grow out of it. She can easily be talked out of bullying that little wimp Lars. And the Jarl of Whiterun's kids are about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

You have to talk her out of it, instead of showing her respect on her level and punching her out of it (She's young and tough - she'll heal. And probably prefer the lesson in humility given her way than condescendingly talked down to like the child she actually is). I was annoyed that it was impossible to help Lars grow a backbone.

On topic - Respect for Life is a "Good" trait. Lacking that means you're Not Good. It doesn't necessarily mean you're Evil (Though it can)

And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard ****head gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live). Unless the kids in question are pickpockets/thieves, when it's Explosive Runes all the way.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-19, 11:38 PM
And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard ****head gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live). Unless the kids in question are pickpockets/thieves, when it's Explosive Runes all the way.

Just remember to dismiss the runes before you pay for groceries, drinks, or anything else. The results of such a mishap could be unpleasant, to say the least.

"Oi, shine ya shoes, sir?"

"Sure thing, ya rascal" [tosses a coin to him]

"Oh boy, a gold piece!.. what does it say here? I prepared..."

"WAIT NO DON'T READ THAT IT'-"

[Massive explosion kills everyone within 10ft]

hamishspence
2014-01-20, 07:24 AM
On topic - Respect for Life is a "Good" trait. Lacking that means you're Not Good. It doesn't necessarily mean you're Evil (Though it can)

I prefer to think of it as a continuum:

"Great respect for all life = Good"
"Moderate respect for all life = Neutral"
"Low respect/severe disrespect for some life = Evil"



And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live).

"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.

Especially when it's a child - even if that child is a "teenage monster".

only the worst get outright immolated - and WILL suffer long-term damage(And get a lesson in humility), but only because they did something to deserve it, and can still Stop, Drop+Roll before he dies
Indeed, wanting them to live with severe burns for the rest of their life (assuming healing potions are not available) is pretty Vile.

GybeMark
2014-01-20, 01:46 PM
I've seen a few ways to play neutral characters that "work". A PC in one of the first campaigns I played was LN in that all they cared about was "the law". The character's primary motivation for adventuring was a personal drive to punish lawbreakers (this was high school, and we had just discovered Judge Dredd comics...). In this character's view, if you stole treasure from an evil sorcerer's grave to feed orphans, than you were equally guilty of "theft" as someone who was stealing food from the orphans to throw a party. The fact that (at least in this campaign) most "laws" were there to enforce "good" behavior (don't murder, don't steal, etc) had no bearing on alignment.

So in answer to "a way to play neutral characters in a good campaign" is to pick *something* that the character is devoted to, regardless of whether it's "good" or "evil". Since you've already been adventuring with the party, maybe your character believes in "all debts should be paid", and feels that she owes the party something. They don't care how they accomplish the "payback".

If you feel like you need to justify "neutrality" by doing some less-than-good tasks, then maybe you could talk to your DM about putting the characters in a situation where being good just doesn't cut it, and the party has to rely on you to take care of things that their character cannot in good conscience do. Maybe an NPC with information is captured and while the rest of the party is indisposed, and you "persuade" them to give you information...

Coidzor
2014-01-20, 02:20 PM
"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.

Or it's comedy gold if played for laughs.

hamishspence
2014-01-20, 02:22 PM
I was going with "how would I react if I was on a jury and was shown a videotape of it happening, and heard the guy's testimony of why he did it."

The Oni
2014-01-20, 02:40 PM
Or it's comedy gold if played for laughs.

Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.

Scow2
2014-01-20, 03:41 PM
"Cosmic forces" don't have the power to make choices "I won't tolerate this kind of person being on my side" - they don't have intelligence in that sense.Actually, they do because Magnets are also not intelligent, but still choose what particles to attract. When people perform deeds in line with a given alignment, they start aligning themselves with that alignment just as the electrons in an iron bar align themselves with the poles of a magnet and become magnetized. That's why it's called "Alignment", not "personality".(I know that's not QUITE how magnets work.... but it's an analogy)


A person doesn't cease to be Evil merely because they do Good deeds now and again.But they DO cease to be Evil if they do Good deeds in a Good Mindset with greater or equal frequency than Evil Deeds in an Evil mindset. "All the ****ing time" is not "Now and again"


Eh.

Truth be told, as punchy as what I said earlier sounds in my head, the presence and nature of Cosmic Good really depends on the setting, so it's not really useful to make blanket statements about it.

Not only that, but actual "Balance Neutral" requires the sort of cosmic perspective that comes with being the wizard ubermensch a la Mordenkainen and is thus pretty useless for 99.9999% of player characters.Actually, most player characters have enough power to swing the cosmic powers one direction or another by annihilating, marginalizing, or converting the forces of the other side.

Neutral is BROAD. The reason why 1/3rd of Humans can be "more evil" than someone who has "Kills babies" or "Sets children on Fire" or "Guns down civilians" on their list of behaviors is because they have no other redeeming qualities.


I prefer to think of it as a continuum:

"Great respect for all life = Good"
"Moderate respect for all life = Neutral"
"Low respect/severe disrespect for all life = Evil"Fixed that for you. Your standards are WAY too high. Neutral is NOT "Good Light". Very few people have respect for all life (Do you really give a damn about the billions of bacteria and fungus you kill every time you wash your hands? You didn't specify "Intelligent" life.) Also, you can respect life and still freely take it.


"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.Merely being obnoxious and continuing to tick off the pyromancer after being warned results in at worst a damaged piece of clothes and a light burn for a day, or smelling terrible and being partially bald for a week.


Especially when it's a child - even if that child is a "teenage monster".

Indeed, wanting them to live with severe burns for the rest of their life (assuming healing potions are not available) is pretty Vile.Severe burns require a MUCH worse transgression than merely being obnoxious.

On the other hand... would it really have been better for Pyro to just abandon the kid after he proved uncooperative in the fire, and without the demeaning and foul-mouthed dead weight was better-able to save the other kids with less damage to himself and the others (Including the puppy managing to survive), while the jerk burned/asphyxiated to death in the fire because he rejected his chance at salvation?


Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.Which is why the character is Neutral. And the kid isn't in any danger. He's obnoxious? The Sorcerer sets his hair on fire. He'll stink for a day, possibly be bald for a week, get spooked a bit, but otherwise be fine. (I know I've set myself on fire several times!)

Also - all three situations have the character respect life.
Pyro respects the lives of the Orphans enough to nearly get himself killed ensuring they all get out, but not to the extent of tolerating an obnoxious, degrading bully insulting and belittling his selfless efforts and tormenting the ones who've lost things in the fire. (And in his extended action, he respects the livelihoods of the people of Foresttown to sacrifice his own life to destroy the invading army, but not to the point that he'll let the few within the blast radius allow him to let the army overrun the town and kill everyone else... and he respects the lives of both the Rakshasa and their slaves enough to completely overhaul their society and ensure they can live in harmony, but not to the extent of allowing slave rebels to undermine the peace with partisanship (Who are themselves Neutral, not Evil), nor the rights of both to self-determination to the point that they can revert to a position to wipe the other out again.)

The Charioteer has enough respect for the lives of the people in town to intervene and stop the Mad Poisonbomber from killing everyone, but not to the extent of caring about the few who fail to heed his warnings and get run over more than the lives of those who will die if he doesn't stop the Mad Poisonbomber ASAP.

Even TriggerHappy has enough respect for life of the people of the planet he's on to stop the invasion of the Aliens of Subjugation and Slaughter, but not enough to feel bad about accidentally killing the scientists and civilians in the compound who get in his way (And are possibly accessory to allowing the invasion to occur in the first place). He tries not to shoot them, but if he does, "What's done is done, I can't do anything about it now - and they would have died anyway if I wasn't here to clean up this mess."

hamishspence
2014-01-20, 03:53 PM
Also, you can respect life and still freely take it.

You can also "respect the lives of some" "have contempt for the lives of others" and be Evil.

A elf who is kind and altruistic toward strangers who are not dwarves - and cruel & vicious toward dwarves - can cross the line into Evil, and stay there no matter how kind and altruistic toward most people they meet, they are.


.
Merely being obnoxious and continuing to tick off the pyromancer after being warned results in at worst a damaged piece of clothes and a light burn for a day, or smelling terrible and being partially bald for a week.

Earlier though:


(Richard gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live).

Coidzor
2014-01-20, 05:01 PM
Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.

Well, it'd have to be someone receiving karmic retribution, mostly.


I was going with "how would I react if I was on a jury and was shown a videotape of it happening, and heard the guy's testimony of why he did it."

I'm just reminded of the time my best friend set his arm on fire with rubbing alcohol and managed to avoid getting any burns from the experience.

And the slapstick conventions in play in certain anime. XD

Slipperychicken
2014-01-20, 06:05 PM
I'm just reminded of the time my best friend set his arm on fire with rubbing alcohol and managed to avoid getting any burns from the experience.


Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

Coidzor
2014-01-20, 06:07 PM
Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

Well, he'd been doing it with his fingers without incident. He just sorta spilled it and it spread further than he intended, so, the worst part as far as I can recall was the surprise and having to resist the urge to panic.

TuggyNE
2014-01-20, 06:46 PM
Earlier though:

The backtracking will continue until morale improves. :smallsigh: At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?

FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 06:49 PM
Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

As I understand it, rubbing alcohol burns at a very low heat, and if there's enough of it, the liquid itself actually provides some insulation.

That being said, in this particular incidence I had too much rubbing alchohol too poorly distributed (so flames were falling across dry skin), so I'm fairly sure that if I hadn't put it out as quickly as I did, I would have suffered burns.

Angel Bob
2014-01-20, 07:25 PM
The backtracking will continue until morale improves. :smallsigh: At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?

Once we get to "Doesn't burn X whatsoever, but in the heat* of the situation, snaps and maybe threatens to burn X", then I'll be satisfied. That's the worst Pyro can do without remorse for me to still consider him non-Evil.

*Ba-dum-tsh. :smalltongue:

veti
2014-01-20, 08:08 PM
That's my main beef with the thieves guild and dark brotherhood questlines too. I witness firsthand the depravity they routinely sink to, have a change of heart, decide to destroy their organization from the inside, or at least report their lair's location and lead a squad of law enforcement to bust them... only to find out I can't. Because Bethesda wants me to follow the rails, and no other reason. Even when NPCs tell me how bad a person my character is for continuing those questlines, there's no option to quit.

Yep, and that's why Skyrim, despite its best intentions, isn't really a roleplaying game. It makes some effort - more than most offline computerised games - but there's a finite limit to how much complexity and choice you can build into a static world. And in practice, your development schedule and budget will mean you'll never get close even to that limit. That's why there are so many mods for it.

A mod to "fix" the children of Whiterun would be pretty straightforward, although I don't know of any. It'd be significantly more work to fix what's wrong with Riften, or the civil war, or allow you to betray the Dark Brotherhood after joining them - and at that point, you also run into the "voice acting" limitation. (Seriously, whoever's bright idea it was that all characters need to be fully voice-acted needs to be punched. Hard. Then forced to play 'Morrowind' until they get it.)

Slipperychicken
2014-01-20, 11:06 PM
(Seriously, whoever's bright idea it was that all characters need to be fully voice-acted needs to be punched. Hard. Then forced to play 'Morrowind' until they get it.)

I mean, voice acting does help immersion somewhat, things like hearing NPCs say background stuff in town, or shout things during combat. Granted, that gets old once you hear the same lines repeated like 20 times.

I would be okay with sacrificing voice-acting if it meant way more dialogue options. Of course, removing the voice-acting would also make it infinitely easier for people to seamlessly mod in character interactions: Just throw down the NPC model and dialogue text.

Rhynn
2014-01-20, 11:23 PM
This is pretty off-topic, but I 100% agree that full voice-acting is a cancer in computer RPGs. It results in horrible and incomplete, almost crippled dialogue like seen in Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas. It doesn't help that it's usually pretty bad in quality (making listening to a lot of it painful), and huge wads are blown on famous actors who are not nearly worth it when you can't see them act, just hear them reading lines...

Scow2
2014-01-20, 11:43 PM
You can also "respect the lives of some" "have contempt for the lives of others" and be Evil.Not if you "respect the lives of most" and "Have contempt for the lives of those who go out of their way to lose my respect".


A elf who is kind and altruistic toward strangers who are not dwarves - and cruel & vicious toward dwarves - can cross the line into Evil, and stay there no matter how kind and altruistic toward most people they meet, they are.Actually, if they're actually beneficial to most people they meet, they're Neutral, not Evil... but Dwarves will think he's Evil because they only see the darkest side of him, instead of the lighter sides as well. Good and Evil DO balance out if the acts are of comparable regularity and/or severity.


Earlier though:That's because Richard went beyond "Pest" to outright "menace".


The backtracking will continue until morale improves. :smallsigh: At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?I never said Burns X to death. The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling. If Richard burns to death, it's because he wouldn't stop being an annoying little ****head to extinguish it.

PersonMan
2014-01-21, 12:30 AM
The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling.

When I picture a pyromancer "setting X on fire", I don't think of them just igniting their clothes or something, but fully engulfing them in flame. Which is significantly harder to stop drop 'n roll out of because you're engulfed in flame.

Also, expecting a child to not panic when set on fire but rather go through a specific sequence of actions which he's never been taught to put it out is kind of...unrealistic?

Slipperychicken
2014-01-21, 12:36 AM
Also, expecting a child to not panic when set on fire but rather go through a specific sequence of actions which he's never been taught to put it out is kind of...unrealistic?

I don't know about you, but I was taught "stop, drop, and roll" relatively early on*. Also, the reflex save to put out flames doesn't require any special procedure: rolling on the ground, or smothering with a cloak merely gives a +4 bonus on the save.

*(I have not, thankfully, yet had the opportunity to use that knowledge, but I feel like I would remember it if there wasn't a water source at hand.)

Of course, I don't know whether the average child in dnd-land would be taught what to do if he's set on fire.

TuggyNE
2014-01-21, 12:39 AM
I never said Burns X to death. The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling. If Richard burns to death, it's because he wouldn't stop being an annoying little ****head to extinguish it.

Ah. Then, when multiple forumgoers exclaimed over how evil it would be for Pyro to burn someone to death on page 3, why didn't you say "no, that's not what I meant"? You switched from "yes, it's totally fine to kill people in the course of being an antihero without going Evil [including, presumably, Pyro burning Richard to death]" to "nah, Richard would just get minor first-degree burns" without clarifying your position at all in between, which looks a lot more like changing your position than clarifying it from here.

Not that changing your position is something to be ashamed of, as such, but it's best to be aware of it when it happens, rather than trying to say how consistent you've been all along.

PersonMan
2014-01-21, 12:43 AM
I don't know about you, but I was taught "stop, drop, and roll" relatively early on.

I don't know about you, but I live in a modern world that spends a massive amount of time, energy and resources on people's safety.

I'm not sure if orphans in a semi-medieval fantasy setting would be taught it, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: Ninja-edit. Yeah, we're on the same page now. :smalltongue:

Scow2
2014-01-21, 01:41 AM
Ah. Then, when multiple forumgoers exclaimed over how evil it would be for Pyro to burn someone to death on page 3, why didn't you say "no, that's not what I meant"? You switched from "yes, it's totally fine to kill people in the course of being an antihero without going Evil [including, presumably, Pyro burning Richard to death]" to "nah, Richard would just get minor first-degree burns" without clarifying your position at all in between, which looks a lot more like changing your position than clarifying it from here.

Not that changing your position is something to be ashamed of, as such, but it's best to be aware of it when it happens, rather than trying to say how consistent you've been all along.I'm saying that Pyro wouldn't care if the kid saved himself from the fire or not. He uses "Minor ignition" on mere nuisance kids, but when it comes to people who are outright malevolent (But not violent about it), it's Immolation, no matter how old or young they are (But young people get more warnings - Richard was warned 3 times. Also, after nearly suffocating and suffering severe burns himself, our Antihero isn't in a tolerant mood). Also, another mitigating/karmic factor is that Pyro revoked the salvation he'd offered the kid for continuing to be a bullying menace after being warned off.

Had Pyro merely given him a "Minor Ignition", he'd be Good, not Neutral, because he wouldn't have committed an evil act (Disciplining an unruly child is not Evil.)

Someone who remorselessly commits evil acts with similar frequency as he commits unqualified and unmitigated Good acts is Neutral in D&D 3.5 (Through the "Frequent alignment changes"/"Wishy-washy" clause in the DMG), and Unaligned in 4e (Where being Evil actually requires a commitment to the furthering of Evil on the world.)

The PHB dramatically undersells Neutrality in characters that are Larger Than Life figures, painting Neutrality simply as an alignment for those who are passive/uninvolved/hard-to-motivate, as opposed to characters who act with proactive conviction that tends to careen all over the place on the moral and ethical axis. (It also short-sells all other alignments as well by painting a narrow view of them)... And seems to all around focus too much on the "personality" and not enough on the "Alignment" ends. Such as discounting the Chaotic Neutral person who wants to revert to anarchy and remove the restrictions and pressures Society puts on people to act as Evil or Good.

Then again, I think they did so to discourage thoughtless application of "Psychotic Neutral" and "Crazy Hijinks" Chaotic Neutral.

In Pyro's case here, he is Neutral because he is both Good and Evil.


I don't know about you, but I live in a modern world that spends a massive amount of time, energy and resources on people's safety.

I'm not sure if orphans in a semi-medieval fantasy setting would be taught it, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: Ninja-edit. Yeah, we're on the same page now. :smalltongue:Well, this is a semi-medieval fantasy setting with pyromancers that travel the world saving people but igniting little kids who annoy them.

Scootaloo
2014-01-21, 01:48 AM
Let's stick with the "rescuing the village" thing.

A good character rescues the village because it's the ethically good thing to do. The people are (for all it counts) innocents in need, victims of some more powerful force. He can of course have selfish aims - perhaps he sees rescuing the village as a chance to atone for some other misdeed of his, or to proselytize a religion (think of churches feeding the homeless, there) but unless he's deeply cynical, the first motive is that it's the right thing to do.

The evil character might also rescue the village... but his reasons are going to be mostly selfish. Maybe he wants the village in his debt. maybe by salughtering the orcs he can get new materials for a flesh golem. Maybe it's just that the inn is cozy and he can't drink booze there if it's on fire. Whatever the reason he has, it's going to revolve around himself. oh, he can certainly do it for a good reason too, but even those are likely to be tied to himself. nostalgia, or letting the orphanage burn is "too much, even for me."

The neutral character rescues the village because it just makes sense to do. If those orcs triumph here, well they have more resources with which the accost the next village over. Without this village, the duchy will lose an important trade hub, and famine may strike with the fields burned. He may have an ethical stance - neutral defaults closer to good than to evil after all - but mostly it's going to be because letting orcs tromp the place into the mud staggers common sense... Unless, perhaps, there's something deeper afoot, like the village had been sending adventurers to raid the orc tribes all year...

Scow2
2014-01-21, 01:52 AM
Let's stick with the "rescuing the village" thing.

A good character rescues the village because it's the ethically good thing to do. The people are (for all it counts) innocents in need, victims of some more powerful force. He can of course have selfish aims - perhaps he sees rescuing the village as a chance to atone for some other misdeed of his, or to proselytize a religion (think of churches feeding the homeless, there) but unless he's deeply cynical, the first motive is that it's the right thing to do.But with the current debate, what about the guy who saves the village because it's the ethically good thing to do, but ends up killing a few of the citizens through Friendly Fire? (And not regretting/feeling remorse over it because ♫there's no use crying over every mistake♪he'll just keep on going 'til he runs out of cake♫)

Also, neutral does NOT default closer to Good than Evil. That's a misconception. It's right in the middle.

hamishspence
2014-01-21, 02:19 AM
The PHB dramatically undersells Neutrality in characters that are Larger Than Life figures, painting Neutrality simply as an alignment for those who are passive/uninvolved/hard-to-motivate, as opposed to characters who act with proactive conviction that tends to careen all over the place on the moral and ethical axis.

I prefer splatbooks like Champions of Ruin- which go into much more detail on various Evil Archetypes- like the person who uses Evil means toward good ends-

or the person who, while capable of being kind, just doesn't control their violent impulses.



Had Pyro merely given him a "Minor Ignition", he'd be Good, not Neutral, because he wouldn't have committed an evil act (Disciplining an unruly child is not Evil.)

Igniting a person's hair, or a small part of their clothing- seems like child abuse to me - a very far cry from "normal" discipline.

OldTrees1
2014-01-21, 02:20 AM
Also, neutral does NOT default closer to Good than Evil. That's a misconception. It's right in the middle.

I would remind you that the most evil sane person IRL believed they were doing the right thing. So IRL the continuum is from "doing the right thing" to "doing evil in the name of good". It is entire consistent for the midpoint to be "trying and failing to be good".

hamishspence
2014-01-21, 02:24 AM
I would remind you that the most evil sane person IRL believed they were doing the right thing. So IRL the continuum is from "doing the right thing" to "doing evil in the name of good".

"Doing evil out of sadism" does exist though.

"Trying and occasionally failing to Not Do Evil" is IMO what most Neutral people do.

"general avoidance of Evil acts" is the rule, not the exception - for Neutrality. Its just that these people avoid (through lack of commitment) doing Good acts as well.

People who do both great good and great evil - and make no effort to atone for the Evil - these fit Evil Archetypes better than Neutral ones.

OldTrees1
2014-01-21, 02:27 AM
@hamishspence

Your wording is better than mine.
Desire to do good but lack the commitment. Desire to not do evil but not always holding out.

SinsI
2014-01-21, 02:45 AM
Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Rescue the princess - but take all her precious things for yourself; save the helpless villagers - and make them into your serfs; reveal a plot to take down the rightful king - and confiscate all the property of the conspirators.
Make a good soup out of the cats, and help old ladies only if they have a granddaughter you fancy.

Scow2
2014-01-21, 02:50 AM
Igniting a person's hair, or a small part of their clothing- seems like child abuse to me - a very far cry from "normal" discipline.Bah, everything feels like child abuse. It doesn't hurt the child for any significant amount of time, but does leave a lasting (But not traumatic) impression. Unless the person was immolated, which is strictly reserved for people who prove to be monsters (Regardless of age)

AMFV
2014-01-21, 02:54 AM
Rescue the princess - but take all her precious things for yourself; save the helpless villagers - and make them into your serfs; reveal a plot to take down the rightful king - and confiscate all the property of the conspirators.
Make a good soup out of the cats, and help old ladies only if they have a granddaughter you fancy.

That could be evil too, or even some variety of good. Basically as it's explained at least in the context of 3.5 (which isn't gospel since this is the system open forum) the idea is that good is generally altruistic, evil is generally self-serving at the expense of others. There can be philosophical differences in good. For example the first scenario, where you demand pay could be good if you believe that allowing the princess to be rescued without payment is weakening her character, so requiring pay is a good thing. The neutral option would demand pay, out of a sense of self interest but not to such a level that it would cause problems. The evil character might demand payment at a level beyond what was appropriate or attempt to extort payment.

As you can see the same action can vary quite a bit depending on other philosophical perspectives, the problem is that what is good varies depending on your philosophical perspective. Even what is selfish might. For example there could be a philosophy that believes that allowing other people to do charity is good for them, and so if you do charity to excess (thus denying other people that right) it'd be Evil and selfish. The problem is that these sort of definitions make a hard definition more difficult to manage.

hamishspence
2014-01-21, 03:09 AM
Bah, everything feels like child abuse. It doesn't hurt the child for any significant amount of time, but does leave a lasting (But not traumatic) impression. Unless the person was immolated, which is strictly reserved for people who prove to be monsters (Regardless of age)
Given that the OP's topic was about "how to play Neutral characters" maybe this should be spun off into its own thread?

Scow2
2014-01-21, 08:29 AM
I prefer splatbooks like Champions of Ruin- which go into much more detail on various Evil Archetypes- like the person who uses Evil means toward good ends-Which can be Evil(Any Well-intentioned extremist who's ends aren't great enough to justify the means), Neutral(Dread Necromancers and Malconvokers), or Even Good (Malconvokers and Greyguards).


or the person who, while capable of being kind, just doesn't control their violent impulses.But we're not talking about mere kindness here. We're talking bona-fide commitment to Good, and trying his damnedest to save everyone and do the right thing, but has marked apathy for the few who get in his way of his heroics and a nearly uncontrollable hatred for those who piss him off and offend his moral code (Even though he ends up being quite hypocritical in this regard)

The authors of D&D 3.5 seem to be utterly incapable of presenting someone who has every bit as much dedication and commitment to Good but frequent failings to hold up to the rigors required of the morality. Instead, they stick to "Office Monkey Morality" - the kind that binds those who lack agency and are stuck trying to get by on the best they can do on a day-to-day basis, as opposed to the morality of larger-than-life figures capable of acts of Goodness that surpass the archons of Celestia and depravity of the Demons of the Abyss in the same character.

hamishspence
2014-01-21, 10:45 AM
Instead, they stick to "Office Monkey Morality" - the kind that binds those who lack agency and are stuck trying to get by on the best they can do on a day-to-day basis, as opposed to the morality of larger-than-life figures capable of acts of Goodness that surpass the archons of Celestia and depravity of the Demons of the Abyss in the same character.

Actually, Champions of Ruin mentions such characters- as part of Evil archetypes:

"He could be a psychopath equally capable of acts of extreme Good or extreme Evil".

Scow2
2014-01-22, 02:08 PM
Actually, Champions of Ruin mentions such characters- as part of Evil archetypes:

"He could be a psychopath equally capable of acts of extreme Good or extreme Evil".I decided to get Champions of Ruin.

"The Ends Justify The Means" Evil Archetype is possible for all alignments, not just Evil ones. It's outright acknowledging that Good people can perform Evil acts and still be Good, while their acts are still Evil. They only go full Evil if they fall off the slippery slope it puts them on.

"Just Plain Mean" is for people who engage in neutral/unaligned actions most of the time, but have frequent outbursts of Evil. It's NOT for characters who are usually Good most of the time, with Evil outbursts.

"Driven to Evil" likewise lacks active redeeming qualities ("I will one day do better in the future" doesn't cut it).

It's also a tool for allowing someone to play an Evil character that works/functions in a Good/Neutral party, not a tool to force Neutral characters into Evil.

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 02:14 PM
I decided to get Champions of Ruin.

"Just Plain Mean" is for people who engage in neutral/unaligned actions most of the time, but have frequent outbursts of Evil. It's NOT for characters who are usually Good most of the time, with Evil outbursts.

Why not? Look at the werewolf example the book begins with- "Most of the time he is Good, but his curse outweighs all the good he does"

Just Plain Mean, can be akin to the werewolf, only without the form-changing ability - most of the time they behave in a Good fashion- but when they don't, their evil deeds are atrocious enough to make them overall Evil rather than Neutral.

Scow2
2014-01-22, 02:19 PM
Why not? Look at the werewolf example the book begins with- "Most of the time he is Good, but his curse outweighs all the good he does"

Just Plain Mean, can be akin to the werewolf, only without the form-changing ability - most of the time they behave in a Good fashion- but when they don't, their evil deeds are atrocious enough to make them overall Evil rather than Neutral.The thing about a Werewolf and other curses is that the alignment is supernatural in origin. The cosmic forces that choose alignment stop caring about actions and behaviors, see "Oops, he's cursed. That means he's Evil".

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 02:29 PM
Even werewolves, once they've changed completely, are not exceptions to the general principle that Always X Alignment monsters are capable of voluntarily changing alignment.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#lycanthropyAsAnAffliction

hereafter, the character is subject to involuntary transformation under the full moon and whenever damaged in combat. He or she feels an overwhelming rage building up and must succeed on a Control Shape check (see below) to resist changing into animal form. Any player character not yet aware of his or her lycanthropic condition temporarily becomes an NPC during an involuntary change, and acts according to the alignment of his or her animal form.

A character with awareness of his condition retains his identity and does not lose control of his actions if he changes. However, each time he changes to his animal form, he must make a Will save (DC 15 + number of times he has been in animal form) or permanently assume the alignment of his animal form in all shapes.

Once a character becomes aware of his affliction, he can now voluntarily attempt to change to animal or hybrid form, using the appropriate Control Shape check DC. An attempt is a standard action and can be made each round. Any voluntary change to animal or hybrid form immediately and permanently changes the character’s alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope.

"Permanently" in this case, only means "until the DM decides the character's undergone enough Character Development".

Coidzor
2014-01-22, 02:32 PM
Even werewolves, once they've changed completely, are not exceptions to the general principle that Always X Alignment monsters are capable of voluntarily changing alignment.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#lycanthropyAsAnAffliction


"Permanently" in this case, only means "until the DM decides the character's undergone enough Character Development".

And then he has to make a will save each time he changes until his alignment is reset back at the default for his variant of lycanthropy again, no?

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 02:56 PM
And then he has to make a will save each time he changes until his alignment is reset back at the default for his variant of lycanthropy again, no?I interpreted that once his alignment's changed once, the power of the curse ceases to operate- no more "resetting alignment".

But that might have more to do with rewarding character development- than RAW.

Nonevil werewolves certainly crop up in D&D splatbooks- though those might usually be Natural rather than Afflicted.

Going back to the original thread topic- Neutral characters - with regard to characters whose deeds are a mix of "spectacularly good" and "atrociously evil" - I figure it makes sense for the Evil ones to take precedence.

As BoVD says - "only the vilest beings could be willing to harm another's eternal aspect" (damaging or destroying their soul).

Thus, if you're playing a soul-destroyer- even if it's a heroic, altruistic soul-destroyer- they will be an Evil one.

Fiendish Codex 2 certainly takes a similar approach when it comes to Afterlife Destination for Lawful characters- accrue a corruption score of 9+ and die unrepentant of one's evil deeds, and no matter how many good deeds one has done- one goes to the Nine Hells.

If one is repentant (but would normally go there) one becomes a Hellbred instead, getting a second chance at achieving redemption.

Scow2
2014-01-22, 04:20 PM
Going back to the original thread topic- Neutral characters - with regard to characters whose deeds are a mix of "spectacularly good" and "atrociously evil" - I figure it makes sense for the Evil ones to take precedence.This is actually more a case of Good acts lacking the same Magnitude evil acts can do, and a weight of the actions toward evil. It's difficult, but possible, for someone to have actually Greater/Same Good as Evil and still engage in Vile acts... but there are VERY few one-for-one tradeoffs.

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 04:28 PM
A lifeguard who is secretly a serial killer, has 100+ "saved lives" to his credit for every "taken life" - how many does it take to "balance out"?

Personally - I'd say that "balancing out" in this case, never happens.

Evil deeds corrupt - good deeds can't reverse the corruptive effect- only repentance can.

Scow2
2014-01-22, 04:36 PM
That stance is not supported by the alignment system. Of course, as a lifeguard, it changes from "Saving lives for the sake of saving lives"(Good) to "Saving lives because it's his job"(Neutral). Also, by being a "lifeguard", it implies he's interchangeable with lifeguards that are NOT serial killers, further diminishing the moral impact of his presence on the scene.

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 04:40 PM
That stance is not supported by the alignment system.

Specifically?

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Way I see it, if the character exhibits a Good trait (makes personal sacrifices) lacks the primary neutral traits, and exhibits the Evil trait "destroys innocent life" - since they can't be Neutral - the DM has to choose - Good or Evil.

And an Evil murderer of the innocent for fun, makes more sense than a Good one.

Scow2
2014-01-22, 04:44 PM
Specifically?

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Way I see it, if the character exhibits a Good trait (makes personal sacrifices) lacks the primary neutral traits, and exhibits the Evil trait "destroys innocent life" - since they can't be Neutral - the DM has to choose - Good or Evil.

And an Evil murderer of the innocent for fun, makes more sense than a Good one.And as someone who regularly puts their life on the line for others and goes out of his way to improve the lives of those in the world, it also makes more sense to be Good than Evil... and we end up with the person as "Good AND Evil" - which shifts to "Unaligned".

Slipperychicken
2014-01-22, 04:46 PM
Rescue the princess - but take all her precious things for yourself take her hostage yourself

Fixed that one for 'ya.

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 04:46 PM
we end up with the person as "Good AND Evil" - which shifts to "Unaligned".

Or, the DM picks one.

veti
2014-01-22, 05:16 PM
It occurs to me that a "principled neutral" character may, in practice, act consistently good or evil, if they think the world they are operating in is "out of balance" and requires redressing.

If the evil empire has a complete chokehold on everything, then a Neutral character might choose to act in ways that are indistinguishable from a Good character, because that chokehold needs to be loosened before seeking any kind of balance. Conversely, if the realm has been at perpetual peace and prosperity under its benevolent ruler for 500 years, the "balance-seeking" character might act evilly to shake things up a bit.

In this case, the character doesn't need to balance their own good and evil acts all the time, because the rest of the world is doing that. The neutral, then, is being completely consistent when they throw themselves wholeheartedly on one end of the see-saw.

hamishspence
2014-01-22, 05:22 PM
It occurs to me that a "principled neutral" character may, in practice, act consistently good or evil, if they think the world they are operating in is "out of balance" and requires redressing.

If the evil empire has a complete chokehold on everything, then a Neutral character might choose to act in ways that are indistinguishable from a Good character, because that chokehold needs to be loosened before seeking any kind of balance. Conversely, if the realm has been at perpetual peace and prosperity under its benevolent ruler for 500 years, the "balance-seeking" character might act evilly to shake things up a bit.

In this case, the character doesn't need to balance their own good and evil acts all the time, because the rest of the world is doing that. The neutral, then, is being completely consistent when they throw themselves wholeheartedly on one end of the see-saw.
That would fit a lot of with novels.

russdm
2014-01-26, 09:40 PM
A person who's acts directly spread Good throughout the world more than Evil CANNOT be Evil (Note - It must be direct. Others spreading good as a reaction to his Evil does not count).

I would like to submit the following for your consideration in complete justification of your argument, and see what others would really say about it:

Darth Vader

In the star wars galaxy, Vader is in fact spreading Good acts. He is providing security, safety, support, and assistance to people. There are almost no real accounts of Vader ordering the summery killings of anybody who he didn't believe deserved according to their actions under the law. We do get a few evil acts here and there, but according to how Scow2 is describing things, one would clearly view Darth Vader as being good not evil, since he does more good things than evil. A lot of it is to keep the Empire running after all.

Another would be Emperor Palpatine. His actions turned the corrupt dysfunctional republic into the stable secure Empire, that provided safety and security for all. Aside from those who were unhappy with the situation, the Empire was in fact a rather decent place to live in. He committed more good acts than evil ones.

The last one I would mention is Grand Admiral Thrawn. He brought Imperial security/safety to many races, worked to preserve the power and strength of order, and only fought those who directly opposed him. He also worked to prevent horrible acts from being carried out by his subordinates. In fact, Thrawn is one of the most decent people in the star wars universe and he is more decent than any of the so called rebels.

I could start giving some real life examples, but interestingly all of those people are now considered by our society to be thoroughly evil.

In reality: One act of evil is not equal to an act of good. There is nothing established in any D&D canon that says you can negate one evil act with one good act. It doesn't ever actually appear in D&D. And Alignments still fall under the governance of character choice and decision making.

Ton Phannan put it most correctly when talking to Garik the face Loran in Iron Fist: You can't trade all of the credits whatever that was earned as a child holo-star for the empire into sapient lives to make up for it. You can't punish a child for doing something in innonence against what a man has to do in his adult life. You can't exchange sapient lives for credits and vice versa. It simply doesn't work that way.



Also - all three situations have the character respect life.
Pyro respects the lives of the Orphans enough to nearly get himself killed ensuring they all get out, but not to the extent of tolerating an obnoxious, degrading bully insulting and belittling his selfless efforts and tormenting the ones who've lost things in the fire. (And in his extended action, he respects the livelihoods of the people of Foresttown to sacrifice his own life to destroy the invading army, but not to the point that he'll let the few within the blast radius allow him to let the army overrun the town and kill everyone else... and he respects the lives of both the Rakshasa and their slaves enough to completely overhaul their society and ensure they can live in harmony, but not to the extent of allowing slave rebels to undermine the peace with partisanship (Who are themselves Neutral, not Evil), nor the rights of both to self-determination to the point that they can revert to a position to wipe the other out again.)

The Charioteer has enough respect for the lives of the people in town to intervene and stop the Mad Poisonbomber from killing everyone, but not to the extent of caring about the few who fail to heed his warnings and get run over more than the lives of those who will die if he doesn't stop the Mad Poisonbomber ASAP.

Even TriggerHappy has enough respect for life of the people of the planet he's on to stop the invasion of the Aliens of Subjugation and Slaughter, but not enough to feel bad about accidentally killing the scientists and civilians in the compound who get in his way (And are possibly accessory to allowing the invasion to occur in the first place). He tries not to shoot them, but if he does, "What's done is done, I can't do anything about it now - and they would have died anyway if I wasn't here to clean up this mess."

Here, you are just making stuff up. Lighting a kid on fire to teach him a lesson is way out of proportion to what was done by the kid.

In Pyro's example, he shows not a shred of concern for others or the smallest amount of remorse. That's not neutral in the slightest. This reads as more evil than neutral to me. Pyro can't knock the kid out, why? Why is setting someone on fire the default answer?

For Charioteer, I would say that the character reads as evil again. Not caring enough to even try directing the chariot to avoid hitting people or only clipping them. No, just go ahead and run them over. That's not neutral either.

For Trigger happy, it is also a read as Evil, not neutral to me. His reasons sound more like rationalizing himself into just killing the scientists and civilians. "They were going to die anyway, so what does it matter if I shoot them myself?" I would have called it neutral if the Trigger had been reacting solely through instinct since its a lot harder to suppress that.

Every situation that you have suggested as being Neutral, isn't actually neutral. As a DM/GM, I would be labeling every one of this characters as evil or possessing strong evil tendencies. I can't see how anything they are doing could even be remotely neutral.

For Pyro, neutrality is: Accidentally setting the kid of fire, then apologizing for losing one's temper. Otherwise, this act is totally evil and reeks of CE.

For Charioteer, neutrality is: trying to avoid the people, and trying to minimize damage during the chase, though he really won't stop to help anyway because the mission comes first and he still will feel bad. But from what you said, it reads as Evil because the character actually doesn't value their lives.

For Trigger, neutrality is: Trying to establish threat first before firing or at least feeling bad when the surprise or stress means shooting something that wasn't a monster/alien. There is simply no way what you said is an argument for neutrality, instead it sounds more like justifying doing evil.

Neutral characters think more in terms of "I did what I had to do" and will feel some remorse for their actions, but they are willing to make hard choices, while accepting there wasn't simply other way.

Evil characters will do whatever they feel like without regard to anyone they hurt in the process. They don't care about how proper any response they make is or whether they are harming others in getting things done. As far as they are concerned, only they (the evil character) and their desires matter.

Scow2
2014-01-27, 05:48 AM
I would like to submit the following for your consideration in complete justification of your argument, and see what others would really say about it:

Darth Vader

In the star wars galaxy, Vader is in fact spreading Good acts. He is providing security, safety, support, and assistance to people. There are almost no real accounts of Vader ordering the summery killings of anybody who he didn't believe deserved according to their actions under the law. We do get a few evil acts here and there, but according to how Scow2 is describing things, one would clearly view Darth Vader as being good not evil, since he does more good things than evil. A lot of it is to keep the Empire running after all.x

[quote]Another would be Emperor Palpatine. His actions turned the corrupt dysfunctional republic into the stable secure Empire, that provided safety and security for all. Aside from those who were unhappy with the situation, the Empire was in fact a rather decent place to live in. He committed more good acts than evil ones.The Empire is Evil. It DIDN'T bring any "Safety and Security" (And those aren't "Good" goals, anyway. They're excuses to commit evil more often than not). Imperial soldiers were little more than thugs. Freedoms were heavily curtailed, with Shoot-On-Sight policies toward violators of the draconian laws used in the empire. Consumers and employees were not protected from megacorporation abuse - in fact, entire systems were sold into what amounted to Slavery, with all the abuses that entails. The Empire couldn't even supress genuine threats to security - instead, if there was a percieved threat from an area, instead of getting local support to bring the dissident down covertly and ensure civilians and innocents were not slain, they went for the biggest, most brutal crackdowns available to put fear into every other system (And counterproductively driving them to rebellion).

Also... the Empire NEVER brought "Peace and stability" - Rebellion and dissent started up EVEN BEFORE THE CLONE WARS ENDED, and the Emperor and Vader were both slain within three decades of the Empire's founding.

Despite all its crackdowns, brutal and systematic executions, murders, massacres, and


The last one I would mention is Grand Admiral Thrawn. He brought Imperial security/safety to many races, worked to preserve the power and strength of order, and only fought those who directly opposed him. He also worked to prevent horrible acts from being carried out by his subordinates. In fact, Thrawn is one of the most decent people in the star wars universe and he is more decent than any of the so called rebels.

I could start giving some real life examples, but interestingly all of those people are now considered by our society to be thoroughly evil.Please recalibrate your definition of "Good". Thrawn was evil because his ends were Evil (The exact opposite of what you're arguing against).


In reality: One act of evil is not equal to an act of good. There is nothing established in any D&D canon that says you can negate one evil act with one good act. It doesn't ever actually appear in D&D. And Alignments still fall under the governance of character choice and decision making.The weights are off, but good and evil do counteract. It's how we can have ANYONE in a position of any degree of power be considered "Good", not "Abyssally Evil". Do you have any idea how much collateral damage and suffering you carelessly cause in your own life through the decisions you make (Tip - the repercussions are rarely local).


Ton Phannan put it most correctly when talking to Garik the face Loran in Iron Fist: You can't trade all of the credits whatever that was earned as a child holo-star for the empire into sapient lives to make up for it. You can't punish a child for doing something in innonence against what a man has to do in his adult life. You can't exchange sapient lives for credits and vice versa. It simply doesn't work that wayWhat does this have to do with anything?



In Pyro's example, he shows not a shred of concern for others or the smallest amount of remorse. That's not neutral in the slightest. This reads as more evil than neutral to me. Pyro can't knock the kid out, why? Why is setting someone on fire the default answer?Because he's a gnome. How the hell would he knock the kid out? He has Burning Hands, not Color Spray or Sleep. And he DOES show concern for others - otherwise, he wouldn't have been the first and fastest on the scene, and only one in the blaze. He clearly cares. And, he wouldn't have gotten as worked up and toasted Richard if he didn't care about others - the last bout of insults and bile wasn't directed anywhere near him.


For Charioteer, I would say that the character reads as evil again. Not caring enough to even try directing the chariot to avoid hitting people or only clipping them. No, just go ahead and run them over. That's not neutral either.The charioteer was already handling the Chariot in a way to minimize casualties without compromising his mission. He just stopped caring about those that failed to get out of his way because stopping/swerving for them would allow the Villain to blow up/poison the whole city. He's on a righteous rampage, and won't stop for people who have plenty of warning to get out of the way.


For Trigger happy, it is also a read as Evil, not neutral to me. His reasons sound more like rationalizing himself into just killing the scientists and civilians. "They were going to die anyway, so what does it matter if I shoot them myself?" I would have called it neutral if the Trigger had been reacting solely through instinct since its a lot harder to suppress that.

Every situation that you have suggested as being Neutral, isn't actually neutral. As a DM/GM, I would be labeling every one of this characters as evil or possessing strong evil tendencies. I can't see how anything they are doing could even be remotely neutral.Then maybe pull your head back and look at the big picture? Each one commits evil acts... but are in the process of committing much greater Good acts. Because the Ends don't justify the means, the character cannot be good - but the Ends are not dismissed, either, pulling him out of Evil. Most "Ends Justify the Means" characters never get to the ends, and have Means that ultimately completely eclipse the ends (Such as trying to prevent people from starving to death by nuking them all to reduce "Overpopulation"), or ends that get lost during the journey.


For Pyro, neutrality is: Accidentally setting the kid of fire, then apologizing for losing one's temper. Otherwise, this act is totally evil and reeks of CE.This would put Pyro's alignment in Good, given the background of the event.


For Charioteer, neutrality is: trying to avoid the people, and trying to minimize damage during the chase, though he really won't stop to help anyway because the mission comes first and he still will feel bad. But from what you said, it reads as Evil because the character actually doesn't value their lives.You described "Good", not "Neutral". Saving the civilians from the Mad Poison Bomber is his first priorty - he cannot claim to be good if he'd let a thousand people die because he was stopping to help ten. The Neutral hero here is operating under the assumption that the lives he ends in his run are ultimately worth less than the lives he's saving - if one life is priceless, then ten thousand lives are ten thousand times MORE priceless.


For Trigger, neutrality is: Trying to establish threat first before firing or at least feeling bad when the surprise or stress means shooting something that wasn't a monster/alien. There is simply no way what you said is an argument for neutrality, instead it sounds more like justifying doing evil.Good and Evil DO balance out to Neutral. Good And Neutral balance out to Good. Neutral and Evil balance out to Evil. Most neutral people lack agency to do great good or great evil, and instead have a back+forth of minor boons and moral missteps.


Neutral characters think more in terms of "I did what I had to do" and will feel some remorse for their actions, but they are willing to make hard choices, while accepting there wasn't simply other way.

Evil characters will do whatever they feel like without regard to anyone they hurt in the process. They don't care about how proper any response they make is or whether they are harming others in getting things done. As far as they are concerned, only they (the evil character) and their desires matter.So, you agree that Pyro, the Charioteer, and Trigger are all Not Evil, then? Because none of them care only for themselves or their own desires.

russdm
2014-01-28, 03:05 PM
Its the intention behind acts and how you view and carry out those acts that alignment looks for. At least that is how I view it as working based on what I read of the alignment sections.

The designers need some way of measuring the alignments if they are going to actually use them, otherwise why have them at all?

For your three examples, I am not seeing any kind of justification or explanation for why they would be considered neutral. Evil characters can be just as decent and nice to people and completely heroic as good characters can be. In fact, evil characters can try saving the world and some do. Raistlin Majere saved the world despite being/turning to evil and did a lot of despite that; are you going to deny that?

Pyro chose to use Burning Hands, and commenting about being a gnome with that being why he couldn't do anything else sounds like trying to justify the act when being called out on it. Why does he default to that? Because its the only thing he has? or because he frankly doesn't care and just wants to hurt the kid? Why is he choosing to default to using spells to employ discipline?

You make the claim that each is committing evil acts but are in the process of committing greater good acts and still claim that the ends don't justify the end, while also claiming that by not dismissing the ends it pulls one out of evil. But evil characters don't ever dismiss their Ends either so how you can justify this? How does an evil character actually ever dismiss their Ends and which ones actually have? They usually don't ever. Haven't you heard that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

Even Evil characters have loved ones, so they care for more than themselves and their desires. But aside from those people, most evil characters don't care for others or recognize their rights to anything.

Using Good and Evil acts as a kind of balance, means adhering to the crazy neutral view of "I did some Good, I need to do something Evil to counteract it" which makes no sense. That's sounds more Chaotic stupid or somebody that's nuts.

Scow2
2014-01-28, 04:02 PM
Its the intention behind acts and how you view and carry out those acts that alignment looks for. At least that is how I view it as working based on what I read of the alignment sections.

The designers need some way of measuring the alignments if they are going to actually use them, otherwise why have them at all?

For your three examples, I am not seeing any kind of justification or explanation for why they would be considered neutral. Evil characters can be just as decent and nice to people and completely heroic as good characters can be. In fact, evil characters can try saving the world and some do. Raistlin Majere saved the world despite being/turning to evil and did a lot of despite that; are you going to deny that?"Save the World" is a neutral act, because even people who are evil probably care about it. The act becomes "Good" when you go out of your way to save a world/village/population you otherwise wouldn't care about.


Pyro chose to use Burning Hands, and commenting about being a gnome with that being why he couldn't do anything else sounds like trying to justify the act when being called out on it. Why does he default to that? Because its the only thing he has? or because he frankly doesn't care and just wants to hurt the kid? Why is he choosing to default to using spells to employ discipline?He's a sorcerer. Using nonmagical means is something non-spellcasters do.


You make the claim that each is committing evil acts but are in the process of committing greater good acts and still claim that the ends don't justify the end, while also claiming that by not dismissing the ends it pulls one out of evil. But evil characters don't ever dismiss their Ends either so how you can justify this? How does an evil character actually ever dismiss their Ends and which ones actually have? They usually don't ever. Haven't you heard that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?Because most "For the Greater Good" are A) Committing horrendous acts that do not outweigh the intended Good (Such as forcibly mutating everyone into homogenous blobs to solve the various -isms, or B) flat out impossible, such as most "Prevent War" and "Conflict to End All Conflict" schemes - the ends can't outweigh the means if they never come. Or, C) Completely undermine the goal, such as the Evil Empire's attempts to spread "Peace and Stabilty" through brutal crackdowns, mass murders, and other activities that promote civil unrest.


Even Evil characters have loved ones, so they care for more than themselves and their desires. But aside from those people, most evil characters don't care for others or recognize their rights to anything.None of which apply to the three situations in question. They care about other people, but that care is revoked when a person gets in his way of doing what's right, especially in high-stress situations.


Using Good and Evil acts as a kind of balance, means adhering to the crazy neutral view of "I did some Good, I need to do something Evil to counteract it" which makes no sense. That's sounds more Chaotic stupid or somebody that's nuts.It's not "I did some good, I need to do some evil" - Neutrality isn't the goal of people who behave in this way - it's the end result. Instead of "I did some good, I need to do something evil to counteract it", it's "I usually do good, but that tends to be mitigated because I also tend to engage in Evil acts as well". Or, "I have a moral code that has fundamental disagreements with what's "Good"

Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive.

Also - Champions of Ruin is Forgotten Realms-specific.

There are several examples of Neutral characters your stance would argue are instead Evil in Order of the Stick: Vaarsuvius (Discounting the whole Familicide debacle), Enor, Ganji, Hank, Therkla... pretty much every named neutral character in OOTs

TuggyNE
2014-01-28, 08:20 PM
He's a sorcerer. Using nonmagical means is something non-spellcasters do.

Nonmagical means, like 1d3 nonlethal damage from a slap? That's all that's justified, at the most. Someone who thinks themselves "above such mundane matters" as knocking a bit of sense into someone is pretty arrogant, and if they fall back on "OK, the only spell I have is fire, so let's burninate!", then their arrogance and single-minded obsession with magic has led them into evil.

Do your sorcerers also think they're above walking around (without using fly), or talking to people (without using charm person or telepathic bond)?

Scow2
2014-01-29, 12:15 AM
Nonmagical means, like 1d3 nonlethal damage from a slap? That's all that's justified, at the most. Someone who thinks themselves "above such mundane matters" as knocking a bit of sense into someone is pretty arrogant, and if they fall back on "OK, the only spell I have is fire, so let's burninate!", then their arrogance and single-minded obsession with magic has led them into evil.

Do your sorcerers also think they're above walking around (without using fly), or talking to people (without using charm person or telepathic bond)?You mean 1d3-1 (1d2-2 if gnome) nonlethal damage with a 60% miss chance (+1 BAB @level 3, which is when he's saving the orphans, and -1 STR - or +1 BAB, +1 Size, -2 STR if he's a gnome, vs. AC 12 (+1 DEX, +1 Size)?
And:

Walking around instead of flying? Yes.
Talking without using Sending/Ghost Sound/Message/Presdigitation (OR at least a Dancing Lightshow)? Yes.


I don't argue that the single act is evil. I'm arguing that when the character's taken as a whole, he levels out to Neutral.

"Being Nice" doesn't mean non-evil.

Giving a pocket change to a friend or hobo to help them through a day is Being Nice.
Taking a few minutes of time you don't have anywhere better to spend helping disabled people move around is Being Nice.
Holding the door for someone is Being Nice.
Engaging in polite conversation is Being Nice.

Barging into a burning building at significant risk to yourself, or risking your life on a high-speed chase through streets of a city you don't have any personal stake in to save a population you don't know, and putting yourself in harms way to prevent a planet that you aren't native to from scary dogmatic aliens that have no personal beef with you or anyone you have a 'reason' to care about all go being "Being Nice" into flat-out "Heroic Good".

Lord Raziere
2014-01-29, 12:29 AM
and you make the mistake that the argument is about the one act at all.

its about the fact that morality doesn't even out.

taken as a whole, I see a lifetime that could've been unblemished by evil thrown away by an act of cruelty towards a child that was unwarranted and unnecessary.
he lost his heroism the moment he used that spell upon that child.

to be good, or even neutral you must be moral in some manner, as soon you commit an act with no justification, that was never necessary in any way and feel no guilt- you have thrown away all the good that you ever had. just as someone who murders throws away permanently their life as an honest citizen in the eyes of everyone else, so to does the one who commits an evil act with no guilt, no choice to seek redemption, throws away all the good they have ever done.

he could've been a true hero, but he threw that away for something petty, spiteful and ultimately cruel. he is evil.

Scow2
2014-01-29, 01:07 AM
It makes him Neutral, not Evil. The man is still moral in many ways - He just happens to have a hole in his moral code when dealing with people who annoy him. However, you cannot say that someone who holds themselves to help those they don't even know, to go to any self-sacrificing lengths to protect as many people as he can in the big picture (Excluding "People who Annoy Me" just as much as a Lawful Good FIghter might exclude "Bandits and Mauraders" from his "Protect Life" morality) is not Moral to some degree (He also has "Treat people fairly"). Sometimes, he doesn't always live up to his moral code... then again, less than one in a million real-world people live up to their own moral codes as well (Unless they're extremely lax)

Good is the second-least tolerant of the four Alignments, and just as hostile to life as we know it as absolute Law, Chaos, and Evil are.

Morality does even out. THat's flat out the way it is. Good doesn't like it because it means it has to tolerate at least some degree of Evil, but it also requires it, because everyone has flaws they are blind to.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-29, 01:24 AM
It makes him Neutral, not Evil. The man is still moral in many ways - He just happens to have a hole in his moral code when dealing with people who annoy him. However, you cannot say that someone who holds themselves to help those they don't even know, to go to any self-sacrificing lengths to protect as many people as he can in the big picture (Excluding "People who Annoy Me" just as much as a Lawful Good FIghter might exclude "Bandits and Mauraders" from his "Protect Life" morality) is not Moral to some degree (He also has "Treat people fairly"). Sometimes, he doesn't always live up to his moral code... then again, less than one in a million real-world people live up to their own moral codes as well (Unless they're extremely lax)

Good is the second-least tolerant of the four Alignments, and just as hostile to life as we know it as absolute Law, Chaos, and Evil are.

Morality does even out. THat's flat out the way it is. Good doesn't like it because it means it has to tolerate at least some degree of Evil, but it also requires it, because everyone has flaws they are blind to.

no it doesn't. a moral hole is evil. you either have a consistent morality or you don't. this is not a test where if you fail one question, you still get a C. this is a balloon, where if a single leak is sprung, you have a useless balloon. either the balloon is completely full (good) half-full (neutral) or sprung (evil) and springing a leak in the balloon lets all the air out whether its full or half-full. good and neutral can coexist, neither can coexist with evil.

I cannot coexist with a man who would burn a child because they annoyed him, and if I were to know that he was a hero beforehand, I would hunt him down and slay him for the act, for he has fallen from grace and cannot be forgiven.

Scow2
2014-01-29, 01:31 AM
no it doesn't. a moral hole is evil. you either have a consistent morality or you don't. this is not a test where if you fail one question, you still get a C. this is a balloon, where if a single leak is sprung, you have a useless balloon. either the balloon is completely full (good) half-full (neutral) or sprung (evil) and springing a leak in the balloon lets all the air out whether its full or half-full. good and neutral can coexist, neither can coexist with evil.

I cannot coexist with a man who would burn a child because they annoyed him, and if I were to know that he was a hero beforehand, I would hunt him down and slay him for the act, for he has fallen from grace and cannot be forgiven.Good and Neutral CAN NOT co-exist. Good and Good can't really co-exist either, because of varying degrees of goodness. You do not have a functioning definition of Neutral.

Nobody has consistent morality. EVERYONE has holes in their morality... and nobody has a complete picture of morality. Every moral point you have has a hole in it because of imperfection of human vision. (Same here). Moral codes are also inherently contradictory, because life is not fair and is full of traps to spring on anyone who tries to force a consistent morality that works on the world.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-29, 01:34 AM
if everyone's view of morality is incomplete, then isn't it logical to assume that yours is as well? what if your looking at it too cynically? it seems your the one refusing to acknowledge that there is a blind spot in your moral views, as multiple people have told you your wrong and that the child-burner is evil.

Scow2
2014-01-29, 01:43 AM
if everyone's view of morality is incomplete, then isn't it logical to assume that yours is as well? what if your looking at it too cynically? it seems your the one refusing to acknowledge that there is a blind spot in your moral views, as multiple people have told you your wrong and that the child-burner is evil.Yes, my view is cynical... but when you condemn more than 99% of a population as "Evil" because of ignorance of the atrocities even normal people commit regularly with indifference, it means you need to loosen up your definitions of "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" to get a more even share between them.

Neutral people who commit minor Good acts also tend to commit minor Evil acts (Such as being occassionally nice and occassionally rude). Neutral people who commit major Good acts either commit lots of minor evil acts, or a few Major Evil acts as well. The common problem is that Good acts tend to be of lower magnitude in general than Evil acts.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-29, 01:55 AM
Yes, my view is cynical... but when you condemn more than 99% of a population as "Evil" because of ignorance of the atrocities even normal people commit regularly with indifference, it means you need to loosen up your definitions of "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" to get a more even share between them.

Neutral people who commit minor Good acts also tend to commit minor Evil acts (Such as being occassionally nice and occassionally rude). Neutral people who commit major Good acts either commit lots of minor evil acts, or a few Major Evil acts as well. The common problem is that Good acts tend to be of lower magnitude in general than Evil acts.

wow, so now your equating ignorance with burning a child alive. wow. a person doesn't know about global warming is clearly on par with the worst of murderers, we should punish them all, because things done out of ignorance are clearly evil.

and wow, you are now equating being rude with being evil to that man insulted me! clearly an act of evil! punish the wicked!

you didn't become less judging of people, you just gave up. all because your judgement was too harsh, far harsher than anything I would judge about humanity. imperfection =/= Evil.

AMFV
2014-01-29, 01:59 AM
wow, so now your equating ignorance with burning a child alive. wow. a person doesn't know about global warming is clearly on par with the worst of murderers, we should punish them all, because things done out of ignorance are clearly evil.

and wow, you are now equating being rude with being evil to that man insulted me! clearly an act of evil! punish the wicked!

you didn't become less judging of people, you just gave up. all because your judgement was too harsh, far harsher than anything I would judge about humanity. imperfection =/= Evil.

Well a harsh punishment isn't necessarily evil, it could be, but it isn't necessarily. We'd have to weigh the eventual benefit against the the pain that's caused to the individual.

Being rude can be evil in the D&D sense, if it's done for self-aggrandizement and without care to the feelings of others. If it's done out of thoughtlessness or unawareness it's probably not.

Causing harm to others knowingly for your personal gain is pretty clearly evil, and many people in the modern world would have some evil acts as a result of this. Fortunately people in D&D even are not defined by their actions, a Paladin may need to atone, but he doesn't lose LG just because he commits an evil or chaotic act (and they're held to a higher standard than anybody)

Scow2
2014-01-29, 02:16 AM
Let's not get back into "Was settign the kid on fire evil" argument. I won't argue that ignition of kids isn't Evil - What I'm arguing is that it's overshadowed by the rest of the Good that they do.


wow, so now your equating ignorance with burning a child alive. wow. a person doesn't know about global warming is clearly on par with the worst of murderers, we should punish them all, because things done out of ignorance are clearly evil.Whether knowingly or not, their actions are complicit in horrific crimes against other people - many of which are contradictory and "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". Even when aware of the "problem", people deny they did anything wrong. Good's standards are impossible to live up to - why is one creature more deserving of life than any other?


and wow, you are now equating being rude with being evil to that man insulted me! clearly an act of evil! punish the wicked!It's as evil as being Nice is Good. Being rude makes the world a worse place, being Nice makes it a better one. A single rude gesture/interaction is meaningless, but a lifetime on the recieving end of rudeness can be a special hell.


you didn't become less judging of people, you just gave up. all because your judgement was too harsh, far harsher than anything I would judge about humanity. imperfection =/= Evil.And yet you argue otherwise.

hamishspence
2014-01-29, 07:41 AM
Neutral people who commit major Good acts either commit lots of minor evil acts, or a few Major Evil acts as well.

"lots of minor evil acts" are a lot more viable for a Neutral character, I'd say, than "few Major Evil acts" especially if the "few Major Evil acts" are indicative of a consistent pattern.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 08:02 AM
I play neutral characters in good groups all the time.

Demic Goldmane, Merchant of Mystery, may save the world from demons once in a while. But it's really just a question of economics. Being in an adventuring party is a fast-track to money, and there are plenty of used horses and slightly cursed artifacts to fence along the way.

I think it's a question of attitude sometimes. A character like Demic is a reluctant hero. He really just cares about his own circumstances. If there was a man choking on hydra tongue at the next table in the bar, yes he would cast "Heimlich's Efficacious Maneuver" to cure him of his malady. But it would be because he expects a reward in return, and knows that committing good acts is good for business.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 08:13 AM
"Being Nice" doesn't mean non-evil.

Giving a pocket change to a friend or hobo to help them through a day is Being Nice.
Taking a few minutes of time you don't have anywhere better to spend helping disabled people move around is Being Nice.
Holding the door for someone is Being Nice.
Engaging in polite conversation is Being Nice.

Barging into a burning building at significant risk to yourself, or risking your life on a high-speed chase through streets of a city you don't have any personal stake in to save a population you don't know, and putting yourself in harms way to prevent a planet that you aren't native to from scary dogmatic aliens that have no personal beef with you or anyone you have a 'reason' to care about all go being "Being Nice" into flat-out "Heroic Good".

These are excellent points. "Being Nice" doesn't make you "Good".

As was mentioned before, Good entails personal sacrifice. A truly GOOD PC would for instance give up a share of treasure to save someone. Or sacrifice an arm or something. Or die to save her party.

Jay R
2014-01-29, 11:14 AM
The crucial conclusion of this discussion (and almost any other discussion of D&D alignments) is that we are not in agreement about them.

Angel Bob
2014-01-29, 03:10 PM
Let's put it this way. Most people in the real world fit a Neutral alignment, barring the truly Good Samaritans and philanthropists of society. By extension, most people on this forum and in this thread would be classified as Neutral. We all have the capacity to care for our friends and family, and we all have a point beyond which our empathy does not extend. And I'm sure we all have people whom we really despise, and wish they'd just get the smack upside the head they deserve. All of that is normal; that's Neutral.

Now, take into account that the vast majority of these Neutral forumgoers are absolutely horrified by the prospect of intentionally burning a child, for whatever reason. That is not a Neutral attitude; it's Evil. The act shows a horrific and callous disrespect for the child's life and safety. It goes beyond "Man, screw James, he can go jump under a bus for all I care" and into "James, I've had enough of your crap, I'm pushing you under a bus right now; think fast, maybe you'll live".

And don't tell me it's a Lawful attitude to care for the safety of a child because "it's a notion embedded in our society and reinforced by our laws". Society is not Lawful. Society is everything. Society controls both the laws we implement and the freedoms we leave open for ourselves; it spans both axes of the alignment chart and cannot be charted. Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic, or Neutral, we all influence and are influenced by society.

Only the most extremely aligned individuals -- the most Lawful, the most Chaotic, and in this case, the most Evil -- can do something to offend the basis of our society. In this case, not burning children is the expectation, and our example sorcerer has just diverged from that expectation. He has moved beyond gnashed-teeth frustration and even quiet hatred of this child and moved into intentionally causing pain to relieve stress. Here's a hint for you: Hurting other people is not a healthy method of stress-relief. That is why we punish children for lashing out, and we punish adults even more so. To be Good or Neutral -- to be anything but Evil -- we must have a certain unspoken restraint from violence, coupled with a respect for someone else's freedom from pain.

And that is all I have to say about that.

Scow2
2014-01-29, 03:30 PM
Let's put it this way. Most people in the real world fit a Neutral alignment, barring the truly Good Samaritans and philanthropists of society. By extension, most people on this forum and in this thread would be classified as Neutral. We all have the capacity to care for our friends and family, and we all have a point beyond which our empathy does not extend. And I'm sure we all have people whom we really despise, and wish they'd just get the smack upside the head they deserve. All of that is normal; that's Neutral.

Now, take into account that the vast majority of these Neutral forumgoers are absolutely horrified by the prospect of intentionally burning a child, for whatever reason. That is not a Neutral attitude; it's Evil. The act shows a horrific and callous disrespect for the child's life and safety. It goes beyond "Man, screw James, he can go jump under a bus for all I care" and into "James, I've had enough of your crap, I'm pushing you under a bus right now; think fast, maybe you'll live".

And don't tell me it's a Lawful attitude to care for the safety of a child because "it's a notion embedded in our society and reinforced by our laws". Society is not Lawful. Society is everything. Society controls both the laws we implement and the freedoms we leave open for ourselves; it spans both axes of the alignment chart and cannot be charted. Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic, or Neutral, we all influence and are influenced by society.

Only the most extremely aligned individuals -- the most Lawful, the most Chaotic, and in this case, the most Evil -- can do something to offend the basis of our society. In this case, not burning children is the expectation, and our example sorcerer has just diverged from that expectation. He has moved beyond gnashed-teeth frustration and even quiet hatred of this child and moved into intentionally causing pain to relieve stress. Here's a hint for you: Hurting other people is not a healthy method of stress-relief. That is why we punish children for lashing out, and we punish adults even more so. To be Good or Neutral -- to be anything but Evil -- we must have a certain unspoken restraint from violence, coupled with a respect for someone else's freedom from pain.

And that is all I have to say about that.
That's because most people are Neutral, with very little behavior pushing them to either side of the morality spectrum. An originally-Neutral person with a blank "Alignment Resume" that commits Evil Deeds quickly falls to Evil, because he lacks the redeeming qualities, behaviors, and actions to pull him out of the Dark Side of the alignment spectrum.

But this is someone who's moral resume ISN'T as blank as the average person's, and a single evil act isn't enough to change his alignment when weighted with the Good he has done (And I have never seen an example of an Evil person that has done "less" Evil than Good). A person who has done great good and great Evil is Neutral. Some people (Like Lord Razier) probably get pissed when they learn that a Hero isn't Exalted Good (Seriously... her definition of being a hero is "Exalted Good or Bust".)

Also, "Hurting people isn't healthy, so we will hurt everyone who hurts others!" seems to undermine its own point... and the only way it functions and leaves a "Clear Conscience" is by Othering and denying the humanity and agency of the victim of their punishment.

Angel Bob
2014-01-29, 05:51 PM
We don't hurt people who hurt others -- we explain their mistakes to them and then take away something they enjoy as punishment. Kids have to sit in time-out instead of playing with friends; adults have to give up their freedom for a time. Once their punishment's over, they've had time to stew on what they did and why it was wrong, and how to avoid making such mistakes in the future. (At least, that's the idea. Let's not get into a debate on whether or not the penitentiary system does its job well.)

And let's not assume too much about Lord Razier's standards for good. Whether or not you actually understand his criteria for the Good alignment, it's beside the point; this thread is discussing the Neutral alignment. And I know Razier and I agree on the same standards there: Neutral is not an absence or equality of Good and Evil. It is its own separate level of morals, covering the wide range of actions and attitudes between those two extremes.

Also, the idea of alignment "balancing out" is the same flawed reasoning that gives us "Okay, I saved the orphanage, so now I have an excuse to go kill people and take their stuff!" players. I think we can all agree that saving an orphanage and then murdering people for their riches do not "balance out" to give you "Neutral"; they give you "dangerously unhinged, ignorant of the actual meaning of morality, and Evil". That mindset would suggest that a man who has saved countless lives and cultivated an age of peace and prosperity then has an excuse to go murder an old lady because he wants the heirloom on her mantlepiece, while still ending up somewhere other than the Big Fire Below. It is a mindset that tolerates willful and malevolent crimes so long as the person in question also puts a few good deeds into the universe's can.

Note the emphasis here on "Evil intent". Accidents happen, and Good people sometimes make horrible mistakes and perform Evil actions. The crucial difference is in intent. Evil people feel no compunctions about doing Evil; some even enjoy it. Good people resist the temptation of Evil; the best of them will avoid doing Evil in a difficult situation. Neutral character are more complicated. There are those who will perform minor Evils for the right price: cons, swindles, et cetera. If we were to use the Giant's standards, even assassinations fall under the Neutral category. Vengeful killings, however, that sprung from the killer's own thoughts and feelings? Those are Evil acts. I don't think anyone's disputing that, not even Scow2. Vengeful abuse, however, is also Evil; as was discussed in hamishpence's other thread, discipline can go too far. The moment the action becomes about the doer's own feelings -- when it becomes "He provoked me/took my stuff/insulted my mother/really annoyed me", that is when the action has become Evil.

And yes -- sometimes, people can commit an Evil act and still remain Neutral. Some acts, however, are so Evil that they stain a person's alignment forever. Murder, torture, mutilation; if these actions are committed with malevolent intent, and the person feels no remorse -- (just once!) -- that is when they have gone too far. Pyro went too far. His life of virtue is commendable, but if he feels no remorse for responding to an annoyance with lethal force, and does not understand the horror of immolating a mere child*, he has plunged into Evil. If, however, Pyro were to realize the shame and horror of his act and attempt to make amends, he would climb up to Neutral, or even back to Good. One of the later extensions of Pyro's story describes his death while defending a village; if Pyro thereafter dedicated himself to protecting children from grievous harm like that he inflicted on Richard, in Richard's memory or honor, then I would see him as a fundamentally Good character who once made a horrible mistake. Redemption is always an option, and Good is not the exclusive club that Scow2 seems to think I and Lord Razier view it as.

Good requires self-sacrifice and respect for others; that is key. These criteria, especially sacrifice, are hard for most of us average Neutral schmucks -- but not for an adventurer. Adventurers have the wealth and power to stand up for or against the common man and work great deeds for Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. If they are to be of a Good alignment, it is their responsibility to aid the common folk of the world in any way they can, be that by making vast donations, protecting kingdoms from raging monsters and scheming villains, or by rescuing people from disasters and calamities. Those who are still preoccupied with themselves and, at best, close friends and family? Those adventurers remain Neutral at best, and are Evil if they will cause wanton pain to those outside their personal circle.[/SPOILER]

If this post seems to have gone on too long for you, you may be correct -- I think I have drifted away from my main point. In that case, let me restate my basic thesis: Alignment does not "balance out". We need only look at the real world to see this; no one is arguing that Bill Gates has earned (through charity) the right to gun down his longtime rivals and enemies without remorse.

*Not everybody is as hardcore as Scow2 and the others who experimented with fire as children. Most people treat fire with wariness, at best. Thus, we cannot assume that Richard will shrug off being set on fire; it is far more likely that the experience will shock and terrify him far more than necessary.

russdm
2014-01-29, 06:06 PM
We don't hurt people who hurt others -- we explain their mistakes to them and then take away something they enjoy as punishment. Kids have to sit in time-out instead of playing with friends; adults have to give up their freedom for a time. Once their punishment's over, they've had time to stew on what they did and why it was wrong, and how to avoid making such mistakes in the future. (At least, that's the idea. Let's not get into a debate on whether or not the penitentiary system does its job well.)

And let's not assume too much about Lord Razier's standards for good. Whether or not you actually understand his criteria for the Good alignment, it's beside the point; this thread is discussing the Neutral alignment. And I know Razier and I agree on the same standards there: Neutral is not an absence or equality of Good and Evil. It is its own separate level of morals, covering the wide range of actions and attitudes between those two extremes.

Also, the idea of alignment "balancing out" is the same flawed reasoning that gives us "Okay, I saved the orphanage, so now I have an excuse to go kill people and take their stuff!" players. I think we can all agree that saving an orphanage and then murdering people for their riches do not "balance out" to give you "Neutral"; they give you "dangerously unhinged, ignorant of the actual meaning of morality, and Evil". That mindset would suggest that a man who has saved countless lives and cultivated an age of peace and prosperity then has an excuse to go murder an old lady because he wants the heirloom on her mantlepiece, while still ending up somewhere other than the Big Fire Below. It is a mindset that tolerates willful and malevolent crimes so long as the person in question also puts a few good deeds into the universe's can.

Note the emphasis here on "Evil intent". Accidents happen, and Good people sometimes make horrible mistakes and perform Evil actions. The crucial difference is in intent. Evil people feel no compunctions about doing Evil; some even enjoy it. Good people resist the temptation of Evil; the best of them will avoid doing Evil in a difficult situation. Neutral character are more complicated. There are those who will perform minor Evils for the right price: cons, swindles, et cetera. If we were to use the Giant's standards, even assassinations fall under the Neutral category. Vengeful killings, however, that sprung from the killer's own thoughts and feelings? Those are Evil acts. I don't think anyone's disputing that, not even Scow2. Vengeful abuse, however, is also Evil; as was discussed in hamishpence's other thread, discipline can go too far. The moment the action becomes about the doer's own feelings -- when it becomes "He provoked me/took my stuff/insulted my mother/really annoyed me", that is when the action has become Evil.

And yes -- sometimes, people can commit an Evil act and still remain Neutral. Some acts, however, are so Evil that they stain a person's alignment forever. Murder, torture, mutilation; if these actions are committed with malevolent intent, and the person feels no remorse -- (just once!) -- that is when they have gone too far. Pyro went too far. His life of virtue is commendable, but if he feels no remorse for responding to an annoyance with lethal force, and does not understand the horror of immolating a mere child*, he has plunged into Evil. If, however, Pyro were to realize the shame and horror of his act and attempt to make amends, he would climb up to Neutral, or even back to Good. One of the later extensions of Pyro's story describes his death while defending a village; if Pyro thereafter dedicated himself to protecting children from grievous harm like that he inflicted on Richard, in Richard's memory or honor, then I would see him as a fundamentally Good character who once made a horrible mistake. Redemption is always an option, and Good is not the exclusive club that Scow2 seems to think I and Lord Razier view it as.

Good requires self-sacrifice and respect for others; that is key. These criteria, especially sacrifice, are hard for most of us average Neutral schmucks -- but not for an adventurer. Adventurers have the wealth and power to stand up for or against the common man and work great deeds for Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. If they are to be of a Good alignment, it is their responsibility to aid the common folk of the world in any way they can, be that by making vast donations, protecting kingdoms from raging monsters and scheming villains, or by rescuing people from disasters and calamities. Those who are still preoccupied with themselves and, at best, close friends and family? Those adventurers remain Neutral at best, and are Evil if they will cause wanton pain to those outside their personal circle.

If this post seems to have gone on too long for you, you may be correct -- I think I have drifted away from my main point. In that case, let me restate my basic thesis: Alignment does not "balance out". We need only look at the real world to see this; no one is arguing that Bill Gates has earned (through charity) the right to gun down his longtime rivals and enemies without remorse.

*Not everybody is as hardcore as Scow2 and the others who experimented with fire as children. Most people treat fire with wariness, at best. Thus, we cannot assume that Richard will shrug off being set on fire; it is far more likely that the experience will shock and terrify him far more than necessary.



I agree with everything listed here.

AMFV
2014-01-29, 07:22 PM
We don't hurt people who hurt others -- we explain their mistakes to them and then take away something they enjoy as punishment. Kids have to sit in time-out instead of playing with friends; adults have to give up their freedom for a time. Once their punishment's over, they've had time to stew on what they did and why it was wrong, and how to avoid making such mistakes in the future. (At least, that's the idea. Let's not get into a debate on whether or not the penitentiary system does its job well.)

And let's not assume too much about Lord Razier's standards for good. Whether or not you actually understand his criteria for the Good alignment, it's beside the point; this thread is discussing the Neutral alignment. And I know Razier and I agree on the same standards there: Neutral is not an absence or equality of Good and Evil. It is its own separate level of morals, covering the wide range of actions and attitudes between those two extremes.

Also, the idea of alignment "balancing out" is the same flawed reasoning that gives us "Okay, I saved the orphanage, so now I have an excuse to go kill people and take their stuff!" players. I think we can all agree that saving an orphanage and then murdering people for their riches do not "balance out" to give you "Neutral"; they give you "dangerously unhinged, ignorant of the actual meaning of morality, and Evil". That mindset would suggest that a man who has saved countless lives and cultivated an age of peace and prosperity then has an excuse to go murder an old lady because he wants the heirloom on her mantlepiece, while still ending up somewhere other than the Big Fire Below. It is a mindset that tolerates willful and malevolent crimes so long as the person in question also puts a few good deeds into the universe's can.

Note the emphasis here on "Evil intent". Accidents happen, and Good people sometimes make horrible mistakes and perform Evil actions. The crucial difference is in intent. Evil people feel no compunctions about doing Evil; some even enjoy it. Good people resist the temptation of Evil; the best of them will avoid doing Evil in a difficult situation. Neutral character are more complicated. There are those who will perform minor Evils for the right price: cons, swindles, et cetera. If we were to use the Giant's standards, even assassinations fall under the Neutral category. Vengeful killings, however, that sprung from the killer's own thoughts and feelings? Those are Evil acts. I don't think anyone's disputing that, not even Scow2. Vengeful abuse, however, is also Evil; as was discussed in hamishpence's other thread, discipline can go too far. The moment the action becomes about the doer's own feelings -- when it becomes "He provoked me/took my stuff/insulted my mother/really annoyed me", that is when the action has become Evil.

And yes -- sometimes, people can commit an Evil act and still remain Neutral. Some acts, however, are so Evil that they stain a person's alignment forever. Murder, torture, mutilation; if these actions are committed with malevolent intent, and the person feels no remorse -- (just once!) -- that is when they have gone too far. Pyro went too far. His life of virtue is commendable, but if he feels no remorse for responding to an annoyance with lethal force, and does not understand the horror of immolating a mere child*, he has plunged into Evil. If, however, Pyro were to realize the shame and horror of his act and attempt to make amends, he would climb up to Neutral, or even back to Good. One of the later extensions of Pyro's story describes his death while defending a village; if Pyro thereafter dedicated himself to protecting children from grievous harm like that he inflicted on Richard, in Richard's memory or honor, then I would see him as a fundamentally Good character who once made a horrible mistake. Redemption is always an option, and Good is not the exclusive club that Scow2 seems to think I and Lord Razier view it as.

Good requires self-sacrifice and respect for others; that is key. These criteria, especially sacrifice, are hard for most of us average Neutral schmucks -- but not for an adventurer. Adventurers have the wealth and power to stand up for or against the common man and work great deeds for Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. If they are to be of a Good alignment, it is their responsibility to aid the common folk of the world in any way they can, be that by making vast donations, protecting kingdoms from raging monsters and scheming villains, or by rescuing people from disasters and calamities. Those who are still preoccupied with themselves and, at best, close friends and family? Those adventurers remain Neutral at best, and are Evil if they will cause wanton pain to those outside their personal circle.

If this post seems to have gone on too long for you, you may be correct -- I think I have drifted away from my main point. In that case, let me restate my basic thesis: Alignment does not "balance out". We need only look at the real world to see this; no one is arguing that Bill Gates has earned (through charity) the right to gun down his longtime rivals and enemies without remorse.

*Not everybody is as hardcore as Scow2 and the others who experimented with fire as children. Most people treat fire with wariness, at best. Thus, we cannot assume that Richard will shrug off being set on fire; it is far more likely that the experience will shock and terrify him far more than necessary.[/SPOILER]


I really hate the "most of us are neutral" argument, it's not really in keeping with the rules or the actual flavor text regarding alignment. Most people are at least somewhat altruistic under the right circumstances it's evolutionarily selected for. Furthermore many people can be selfish under most circumstances, to the point of hurting others. Is not a question of whether or not the action is big or small, it's the intended result, and the characters ability to apply their knowledges to that effect.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-29, 08:30 PM
That's because most people are Neutral, with very little behavior pushing them to either side of the morality spectrum. An originally-Neutral person with a blank "Alignment Resume" that commits Evil Deeds quickly falls to Evil, because he lacks the redeeming qualities, behaviors, and actions to pull him out of the Dark Side of the alignment spectrum.

But this is someone who's moral resume ISN'T as blank as the average person's, and a single evil act isn't enough to change his alignment when weighted with the Good he has done (And I have never seen an example of an Evil person that has done "less" Evil than Good). A person who has done great good and great Evil is Neutral. Some people (Like Lord Razier) probably get pissed when they learn that a Hero isn't Exalted Good (Seriously... her definition of being a hero is "Exalted Good or Bust".)

Also, "Hurting people isn't healthy, so we will hurt everyone who hurts others!" seems to undermine its own point... and the only way it functions and leaves a "Clear Conscience" is by Othering and denying the humanity and agency of the victim of their punishment.

you seem to be laboring under the assumption that I am Miss Paladin. I am not Miss Paladin. I would have no problem killing evil villains, while your Exalted Good people would foolishly spare people like The Joker just to give him a chance at redemption.

however even I would not kill a child for any reason. there is simply no reasonable circumstance where that is necessary, nor any reasonable intent to justify it. there is nothing that justifies it, not even for the most chaotic neutral of people. I can't even see Deadpool being that cruel even once. He might do some weird prank on the kid after the fact or something, but I'm pretty sure even that crazy guy wouldn't do something cruel like that.

and my entire argument, as well as Angel Bob's is that No. it doesn't overshadow the evil that he has done. Remember Dragon Age? remember how Loghain was this hero who freed Ferelden from Orlesian rule? and how he betrayed a single man to try and save it again? yet, in doing so he is the villain of the game who basically screwed up everything. or how about the fact that Robespierre led the French Revolution...then started the Reign of Terror? people didn't think highly of him then, despite all the good he did before.

as for your "if you so much as insult someone your evil" morality: by your logic, all of society is complicit in every genocide, murder, arson, and every other crime in existence. the only good people would be hermits eating only vegetables from their own farms with tools they made themselves, or the stereotypical monks living in some obscure monastery. at that point, the only moral life you can live is looking dangerously like someone who can't stand the world around him, so they go into isolation to escape it and not have to deal with anyone else.

Angel Bob
2014-01-29, 08:37 PM
Well, certainly! We are all selfish at times and selfless at others, depending on how much is at stake, how much we care for those involved, and countless other variables. The thing is, while we all commit good and evil acts, relatively few of us commit truly Good or Evil acts, with the all-important caps. Giving sporadically to beggars on the street is good; giving what you don't need to charities is also good; and pouring your own money into funding a non-profit organization to help the homeless is very Good. Simply giving what you wouldn't need anyway is the good action; giving up some of your own pleasures to help those less fortunate than you is a sacrifice and a Good action. Similarly, shoving someone in a dispute is a very minor evil on a scale which goes all the way up to the Evil action of deliberately causing serious harm (whether physical, emotional, or psychological in nature).

If you absolutely must have some mathematical formula to alignment, how about this: good + evil = Neutral; good + Evil = Evil; good + Good = hella Good; evil + Evil = hella Evil; evil + Good = Good. Lower-caps good and evil are nice and nasty, respectively, but not noteworthy on a worldwide scale. Thus, it's possible to be a fundamentally good person without necessarily having the Good alignment -- as I would describe most everyone on this forum. :smallsmile:

Scow2
2014-01-29, 09:33 PM
Well, certainly! We are all selfish at times and selfless at others, depending on how much is at stake, how much we care for those involved, and countless other variables. The thing is, while we all commit good and evil acts, relatively few of us commit truly Good or Evil acts, with the all-important caps. Giving sporadically to beggars on the street is good; giving what you don't need to charities is also good; and pouring your own money into funding a non-profit organization to help the homeless is very Good. Simply giving what you wouldn't need anyway is the good action; giving up some of your own pleasures to help those less fortunate than you is a sacrifice and a Good action. Similarly, shoving someone in a dispute is a very minor evil on a scale which goes all the way up to the Evil action of deliberately causing serious harm (whether physical, emotional, or psychological in nature).

If you absolutely must have some mathematical formula to alignment, how about this: good + evil = Neutral; good + Evil = Evil; good + Good = hella Good; evil + Evil = hella Evil; evil + Good = Good. Lower-caps good and evil are nice and nasty, respectively, but not noteworthy on a worldwide scale. Thus, it's possible to be a fundamentally good person without necessarily having the Good alignment -- as I would describe most everyone on this forum. :smallsmile:
We're currently arguing over Good+Evil, not Good+evil or good+Evil.


Lord Razier listed a number of people who went from Good, then to Evil, and never pulled up (And who's Evil outright and overshadowed their Good). Pyro is not one of those. He's someone who has a Blend of Good+Evil sprinkled throughout his career.

And Lord Razier again said Pyro was Good, because he does possess the self-sacrifice and respect for others (Though, like any human, he can revoke that respect if a person does something to lose it - Or do you respect every orc your Good character strikes down when stopping the invasion?) It just so happens that being an obnoxious bully is a good way to lose his respect.

You point fingers at Loghain, but ignore Duncan? The man who will forcibly conscript anyone he feels like, and force them to undergo a ritual that has a high chance of killing them outright (And WILL drive them crazy and kill them eventually), and kill anyone who refuses to play along?

Angel Bob
2014-01-29, 10:06 PM
(Darn, I knew I was probably forgetting one of the combinations! Figures it's the important one I left out. Whoops. :smalltongue:)

See, I totally agree that everyone has a line across which people don't get their respect. (There's a difference between really disliking someone and attacking them, though.) But while nobody likes an obnoxious bully, simple bullying isn't sufficient grounds for inflicting violent vigilante justice, whether or not the bully is a child. A child bully has time to mature and mellow out; though an adult bully is, unfortunately, unlikely to change their ways, they still do not deserve grievous harm or terror, as would be inflicted by immolation. (Of course, in a comedic situation, all the rules go out the window -- along with said bully, if we have any luck at all. :smalltongue: But let's assume Pyro is not starring in a work of comedy, and his story is to be taken seriously.)

In more concise phrasing: bullying is an evil act, not an Evil act, and while the bully might lose the respect of a Good character, to respond with anything worse than nonlethal damage is to cross the line into violent and petty Evil. (Key point is, violence is bad, and only the truly Evil deserve to have pain inflicted on them -- and sometimes, not even them.)

Scow2
2014-01-29, 11:23 PM
And my argument is Good+Evil=Neutral.

What D&D campaign ISN'T a work of comedy?

Also, there's more to Pyro than him just torching one kid. He has an entire lifetime of genuine acts of salvation (Protecting a town from an evil curse even though he was only passing through the region) and altruism(Shunning the reward for a slain dragon and returning its horde and more to the people it had stolen from, and ensuring the town was safe from marauding ogres) and self-sacrifice (Charging into a burning orphanage to rescue the children and staff, nearly suffocating and burning to death in the process, and later dying to protect a town he had only seen from a distance from an evil invading army of demons and soldiers and monster) mixed with selfish indulgences (Such as accepting reward money a population couldn't really afford to give, but offered anyway - and using it to build a huge statue of himself in the middle of said town), and outbursts of disproportionate retribution (Torching people who annoy him), and destructive impulses and half-though-out plans (Blowing up a sizeable chunk of a town he was trying to save in the process of saving it from what was supposed to be a bigger threat).

He's a Godzilla-style hero.

In terms of alignment... I'd put "Bullying" up there with other nonlethal atrocities in terms of Evilness, because of the damage it does to the victim.

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 12:10 AM
@Scow2

What does Pyro do that is equal in magnitude with his maxim: Torch people that annoy me to gain respite?

Charity? I don't think so especially considering he is two-faced on that issue (accepting money from the needy contradicts donating wealth to a city to increase its prosperity). In fact this "charity" was described more as returning stolen property (LN not LG)
Risking his life to save others? This is expected of him, even criminals are not expected to torch annoying people merely for respite.

The primary reason why you are getting so much backlash to your Good+Evil = neutral is that you described a good+Evil=Evil character.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 12:24 AM
And my argument is Good+Evil=Neutral.

What D&D campaign ISN'T a work of comedy?

Also, there's more to Pyro than him just torching one kid. He has an entire lifetime of genuine acts of salvation (Protecting a town from an evil curse even though he was only passing through the region) and altruism(Shunning the reward for a slain dragon and returning its horde and more to the people it had stolen from, and ensuring the town was safe from marauding ogres) and self-sacrifice (Charging into a burning orphanage to rescue the children and staff, nearly suffocating and burning to death in the process, and later dying to protect a town he had only seen from a distance from an evil invading army of demons and soldiers and monster) mixed with selfish indulgences (Such as accepting reward money a population couldn't really afford to give, but offered anyway - and using it to build a huge statue of himself in the middle of said town), and outbursts of disproportionate retribution (Torching people who annoy him), and destructive impulses and half-though-out plans (Blowing up a sizeable chunk of a town he was trying to save in the process of saving it from what was supposed to be a bigger threat).


does it matter that a murderer donated to charity before he murdered somebody? does it matter that an arsonist once took care of kids at an orphanage?
does it matter that a wife-beater was once a doctor who healed people?

no. it doesn't.

because once you do those things, your punished for those things, regardless of whatever you were before then. justice is blind. and for good reason. the jerk is punished just as much as the nicest person when they both do something Evil. you don't get a "one evil act free of consequences" card, and the consequence of doing something Evil is becoming Evil.

justice cares not what your life was before or after the moment you did the act, what matters is that you did it. and morality is nothing without justice, including DnD morality. to have him do that act and not become Evil would not be just.

your life's story isn't what matters when it comes to justice. what you did is what matters. and what Pyro did is Evil, and therefore he is Evil.

Raimun
2014-01-30, 12:27 AM
I think Neutral is a good alignment for anti-heroes.

You know, they still save the day but they're hardly the paragons of virtue and grace.

Perhaps they act like heroes for glory and gold only? They wouldn't be willing to trade places with Frodo but would fight for the free peoples if they could be Aragorn.

They could be driven by revenge. Yes, they (or someone else) have been wronged and yes, according to D&D-morality, it is basically a good deed to slay evil cultists but there will be no mercy. Revenge and hatred is all there is for them. Ends justify the means and all that jazz.

Some would adventure because they enjoy fighting and cheating death on the battlefields. An adventurerer group is as good as any and better than most ways to quench their violent urges. You don't need to take orders and if you really want to leave, you can just do it without risking court martial. Also, people don't seem to mind if you only slay things that have sharp teeth or started the fight.

Could be that they're willing to save the world because they happen to live there and have the guts to do it. If everything is about to be destroyed, it affects the selfish bastards too.

Or "the hero" could be an everyman but one who likes to adventure. They aren't in the business to make the world a better place. They are in because they just like that kind of life.

There's also much to be said about being able to play moral ambiguity-card, which is popular now days. You know, being able to play a flawed and fallible character in an alignment-system.

Antique heroes were all pretty much neutral. I don't think Odysseus is a paragon of heroism in modern day terms ("Sacrificing minions, is there any problem it can't solve?") but I think we can all agree his adventures are rather eventful.

All of the above aren't actively trying to make the world a better or a worse place but they are still doing brave (as in risks danger, not morally upright) and heroic (as in great, fantastical and decisive) deeds.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 12:28 AM
@Scow2

What does Pyro do that is equal in magnitude with his maxim: Torch people that annoy me to gain respite?

Charity? I don't think so especially considering he is two-faced on that issue (accepting money from the needy contradicts donating wealth to a city to increase its prosperity). In fact this "charity" was described more as returning stolen property (LN not LG)
Risking his life to save others? This is expected of him, even criminals are not expected to torch annoying people merely for respite.
Bolded the nonsense part. Someone with great power isn't demanded to use it. Nobody has the authority to say a civilian MUST throw their life away to save another that they do not know or have any relation to. Pyro's heroism is voluntary, not compulsory. Self-sacrifice (Especially to the point of it costing one's life) is always Good, not merely "good". Redeeming others, though he tends to be haphazard and selective about it, is also an "always Good" deal.

The charity aspect is one he waffles on depending on his mood - he's usually altruistic.

As for mentally sane... no, but then again, society considers everyone who refuses to play by its rules to be insane or unstable in some way or another.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 12:31 AM
and anti-hero =/= able to get away with completely immoral acts of Evil.

willing to kill the villain and do things pragmatically or just in it for the gold and fame are not equal to burning a child alive for being annoying.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 12:35 AM
{{Scrubbed}}

Raimun
2014-01-30, 12:42 AM
As a rule of thumb, anti-hero is the kind of guy who you could put as the protagonist of a violent action movie and still have the audience root for him.

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 12:48 AM
Bolded the nonsense part. Someone with great power isn't demanded to use it. Nobody has the authority to say a civilian MUST throw their life away to save another that they do not know or have any relation to. Pyro's heroism is voluntary, not compulsory. Self-sacrifice (Especially to the point of it costing one's life) is always Good, not merely "good". Redeeming others, though he tends to be haphazard and selective about it, is also an "always Good" deal.

The charity aspect is one he waffles on depending on his mood - he's usually altruistic.

As for mentally sane... no, but then again, society considers everyone who refuses to play by its rules to be insane or unstable in some way or another.
Expected and Demanded are not the same word. Would you care to reread my post with that distinction in mind? Because yes we do expect adventurers to risk their lives. It is part of the hazards of the profession.

Now was risking his life a form of self-sacrifice? Dying while risking his life for the sake of others could have been self-sacrifice. Dying for the sake of others would have been self-sacrifice. (notice the shift from indirect to direct caused a shift from could to would) However he did not sacrifice anything but his time. While this self-sacrifice is good, it is not of the same magnitude as habitually torching any that annoy you.

I must have missed where you said Pyro tried to redeem someone. What degree are we talking about? Which of these is closest: an average human, a villain, a monster, or a fiend? (ordered by ascending magnitude of virtue in the redemption attempt)

Generally altruistic would be good. Too bad he isn't altruistic to any that annoy him.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 12:49 AM
Only if you give the life of a child undue value. And the children survive without any significant damage (And if they're traumatized for life by the experience, then their life up to that point has been too coddled)

....I do not want to know whatever mindset considers "the future of the world in person form who will someday take up the reins of society and continue our work" as being given "undue value" when someone quite understandably objects to them being killed in the most horrible manner imaginable.

too coddled? there are studies that have shown that things like the Brothers Grim tales cause psychological problems to children when told to them. Socrates way back in ancient times recognized that children needed to be taken care of with a soft touch and advocated for censorship to raise them better. most people wouldn't show a kid a tv show with blood in it, much less one where somebody gets burned alive.

....can't tell if troll. seriously can't.

zlefin
2014-01-30, 12:57 AM
This seems rather far from the original post, which seems to have been answered. So what's the new topic of discussion? I also endorse the plan of moving this to a new thread, so the title has some relevance to what the thread is about. It looks like yet another alignment debate.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 01:18 AM
Expected and Demanded are not the same word. Would you care to reread my post with that distinction in mind? Because yes we do expect adventurers to risk their lives. It is part of the hazards of the profession.It's not a profession. It's volunteer work at best.

Expecting him to risk his life to save another group of people just because he can cast spells, any more than you're expected to volunteer YOUR time to drive people too drunk to get themselves home from a bar across town simply because you own a car.


Now was risking his life a form of self-sacrifice? Dying while risking his life for the sake of others could have been self-sacrifice. Dying for the sake of others would have been self-sacrifice. (notice the shift from indirect to direct caused a shift from could to would) However he did not sacrifice anything but his time. While this self-sacrifice is good, it is not of the same magnitude as habitually torching any that annoy you.He had a high risk of dying in each of the situations. That he managed to beat the odds and survive once or twice does not diminish the threat and risk he took. Nor is his sacrifice diminished by his lover managing to bring him back to life after he did die.


I must have missed where you said Pyro tried to redeem someone. What degree are we talking about? Which of these is closest: an average human, a villain, a monster, or a fiend? (ordered by ascending magnitude of virtue in the redemption attempt)Thousands of Fiends (Though he lost points for his heavy-handed and haphazard handling of the situation), and a bunch of other people too.


Generally altruistic would be good. Too bad he isn't altruistic to any that annoy him.But annoying him isn't the default state.


....I do not want to know whatever mindset considers "the future of the world in person form who will someday take up the reins of society and continue our work" as being given "undue value" when someone quite understandably objects to them being killed in the most horrible manner imaginable.Which is not what's happening. Also, all but one of the kids doesn't die (Or even suffer any injury worse than an easily-healed minor burn or temporary loss of hair)


too coddled? there are studies that have shown that things like the Brothers Grim tales cause psychological problems to children when told to them. Socrates way back in ancient times recognized that children needed to be taken care of with a soft touch and advocated for censorship to raise them better. most people wouldn't show a kid a tv show with blood in it, much less one where somebody gets burned alive.

....can't tell if troll. seriously can't."Psychological problems" is an overly-broad umbrella used to justify a number of atrocities and dehumanization efforts by society "For our own good", and deprive people of agency in their lives by shuffling it off to other areas. Exposure to the horrors of life is a necessary part of growing up. I have seen far too many people disempowered through the instillation of programmed helplessness and victim complexes because they were raised in a way to be incapable of handling the harshness life throws at them.


...and Looney Tunes are still popular even today among kids.

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 01:48 AM
It's not a profession. It's volunteer work at best.

Expecting him to risk his life to save another group of people just because he can cast spells, any more than you're expected to volunteer YOUR time to drive people too drunk to get themselves home from a bar across town simply because you own a car.


Adventurers adventure. Adventuring is risking one's life.So an adventurer risking their life is commonplace and expected.



He had a high risk of dying in each of the situations. That he managed to beat the odds and survive once or twice does not diminish the threat and risk he took. Nor is his sacrifice diminished by his lover managing to bring him back to life after he did die.

High risk of dying? Must be a Tuesday. Seriously, high risk is nothing new to evil adventurers, why would it be indicative of Pyro's alignment?
Death is less of a sacrifice once the adventurer can expect to be brought back each time.



Thousands of Fiends (Though he lost points for his heavy-handed and haphazard handling of the situation), and a bunch of other people too.

While redeeming fiends and burning annoying people does not seem logically consistent to me, I do consider then of similar magnitude.

How Pyro can look past trivial details in the case of the fiends but not in the case of the child is beyond me. I do not estimate alignments for characters that I do not understand.*

*Although perhaps it is because you do not see fire as severe as the rest of us do.
The horror of being set on fire when helpless to stop the flame is compounded by not knowing if your torturer is going to let you extinguish them before you die.
This horror is perhaps comparable to the horror inflicted when partially skinning a child.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 01:54 AM
people deal with life by learning how to manage and control stress, not by being exposed to various horrors that will only lead more stressful situations. more stress leads to depression, lowered immune system, shortened lifespan, on top of the more obvious trauma associated with such horrific situations, and which can lead the fight-or-flight response being activated too much, causing self-destructive cycles where the acute stress is being activated constantly and damaging your immune system and other bodily systems of your life because of stress, as the fight-or-flight responses causes an adrenaline rush while shutting any system not vital to getting out of a dangerous situation, such as digestion, reproductive urges and the immune system.

studies have shown that your mind is not separate from your body. the way you think can impact your health, as can your body affect what you think. to purposefully introduce someone to traumatic situations like that is not helping them, its damaging them in mind and body by making them think in fight-or-flight terms too much, sure the person would technically be "tougher" for a short period of time, but the short-term benefits are outweighed by the long-term cost!
sure this fight-or-flight response allows humanity to do things they normally can't- but in doing so, its costly on your health. and its tiring on you. adrenaline rush takes a lot out of a person.

getting people to think in positive terms, to think things out rationally and calmly and solve things without stressing out too much about them is what is needed. a little stress goes a long way, but too much stress leads to self-destruction.

furthermore I have only seen psychiatric help empower and support people. I would not be the person I am today without the help I have gotten, I wouldn't be so freaking powerful if it weren't for the help I've gotten. and I don't mean smarts or strength of muscle or anything like that- but strength of soul, of my own will. I feel more empowered to do what I can than I ever was!

and all because one person after another didn't give up on me, didn't allow me to beat myself up over my failures and mistakes and showed me to look towards the future and do better. I doubt I would've gotten as strong being shown a person burning alive. I would've only gotten number to the pain. the pain of seeing somebody else's suffering before my eyes. and guess what, we need pain. we need it to tell us when something is wrong.

and someone burning alive? for what? being a minor bully? that is twisted. that is wrong. that is horrifying to me. painful to me. the mere thought of it revolts me. numbness is not strength. its only shutting down the things that tell you when something is wrong and that you need to do something. ignoring the information that you need to know.

Pyro? he didn't feel any pain when he burned that child. he felt joy at burning an annoying person alive. Evil.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 01:58 AM
Adventurers adventure. Adventuring is risking one's life.So an adventurer risking their life is commonplace and expected.He's only considered an "Adventurer" because he feels the need to go out and help others, and make the world a better place. Adventuring is not a profession. That's like saying "Saints doing Good isn't Good because Saints do Good, and it's expected of them".

He doesn't do exceptional things because he's an adventurer - he's an adventurer because he does exceptional things. A real by-the-job-description Adventurer merely wanders the world looking for new things, and lives off what he can make. He's not under any compulsion or expectation to help others.

Seriously... your argument essentially says "Paladins are Neutral, not Lawful Good, because acting in accordance with Law and Good is merely part of the job of being a paladin".


High risk of dying? Must be a Tuesday. Seriously, high risk is nothing new to evil adventurers, why would it be indicative of Pyro's alignment?
Death is less of a sacrifice once the adventurer can expect to be brought back each time.High risk of dying for the sake of others (Such as a group of orphans, or the people of a town in the way of an invading army, or other such things) - the point is that he's sacrificing and risking his life because others depend on him - though he doesn't owe them a damn thing, because he's not even passing through - merely sees a spot of trouble on his travels, and goes in to help under no duress(And he doesn't expect to be brought back - the resurrection was a welcome surprise)


While redeeming fiends and burning annoying people does not seem logically consistent to me, I do consider then of similar magnitude.[/QUOTE]

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 02:20 AM
He's only considered an "Adventurer" because he feels the need to go out and help others, and make the world a better place. Adventuring is not a profession. That's like saying "Saints doing Good isn't Good because Saints do Good, and it's expected of them".

He doesn't do exceptional things because he's an adventurer - he's an adventurer because he does exceptional things. A real by-the-job-description Adventurer merely wanders the world looking for new things, and lives off what he can make. He's not under any compulsion or expectation to help others.

Seriously... your argument essentially says "Paladins are Neutral, not Lawful Good, because acting in accordance with Law and Good is merely part of the job of being a paladin".

Vecna was an adventurer. Did that sentence clash with your assumptions about my argument? Perhaps you are mistaking the term adventurer for something else (hero?).

Adventurer is not a job, it is a profession. Adventurers are individuals that consider themselves powerful/lucky/desperate enough to live off of what they can get via adventures. Adventures are not safe. Adventures are dangerous. Adventurers risk their lives merely by going on adventures. Risking their lives is as common place for them as using feet to walk.

So no my argument is not "Paladins are Neutral, because Law and Good are part of the job of being a paladin". My argument is that "The presence of danger is not indicative of alignment for adventurers because even Evil adventurers risk their lives hourly."



High risk of dying for the sake of others (Such as a group of orphans, or the people of a town in the way of an invading army, or other such things) - the point is that he's sacrificing and risking his life because others depend on him - though he doesn't owe them a damn thing, because he's not even passing through - merely sees a spot of trouble on his travels, and goes in to help under no duress(And he doesn't expect to be brought back - the resurrection was a welcome surprise)


Reminder: Risking one's life and Sacrificing one's life are not the same. Especially when risk is an hourly occurrence regardless of alignment.

So rather than enriching himself(the actual opportunity cost), Pyro saves some lives.

Since the resurrection was not expected, I have one more question. Was death expected or was it merely yet another high risk scenario?



Sidenote. It looks like your post was interrupted.

AMFV
2014-01-30, 03:06 AM
{{Scrubbed}}

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 03:14 AM
He risked his life, you don't have to actually lose something to be willing to sacrifice it. Anymore than people that do heroic acts in ware need to actually die in order to have been willing to lay down their lives.
I was trying to draw a distinction between:
Background levels of risk (neutral)
Risking one's life for others (good)
Being willing to lay down one's life for others (good/Good)

AMFV
2014-01-30, 03:20 AM
I was trying to draw a distinction between:
Background levels of risk (neutral)
Risking one's life for others (good)
Being willing to lay down one's life for others (good/Good)

Well it depends entirely on motivation if the background levels of risk are okay, you don't have to risk your life to be good. Any personal risk with no expected benefit to the self outside of the results of the act is sufficient. At least as far the morality system we're discussing is concerned.

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 03:40 AM
Well it depends entirely on motivation if the background levels of risk are okay, you don't have to risk your life to be good. Any personal risk with no expected benefit to the self outside of the results of the act is sufficient. At least as far the morality system we're discussing is concerned.

I agree with most of this. (I am sleep deprived => I am not thinking straight right now. => I only understood most of it.)

I think that any risk that is likely enough (to the point that it would be assumed) to be short term impact only, would not alter the moral nature of the undertaking. The intent/action/consequence of the undertaking is still relevant to the moral nature of the undertaking.

Ex: A 5th level "fighter" with unlimited out of combat healing vs 1 orc.

AMFV
2014-01-30, 03:44 AM
I agree with most of this. (I am sleep deprived => I am not thinking straight right now. => I only understood most of it.)

I think that any risk that is likely enough (to the point that it would be assumed) to be short term impact only, would not alter the moral nature of the undertaking. The intent/action/consequence of the undertaking is still relevant to the moral nature of the undertaking.

Ex: A 5th level "fighter" with unlimited out of combat healing vs 1 orc.

Well even the short term is still relevant, he's wasting his time, and that's something, unless you're arguing that volunteering isn't Good, and I'd argue it is, even in roleplay time is something you never get back, and that's a pretty big risk.

The_Jackal
2014-01-30, 03:50 AM
D&D alignments, are, and have always been, terrible. It was a first attempt at putting some kind of code of conduct for those classes for which the background fluff required, ie: clerics and paladins (which, if you look at the source material, ought to have been just one class). They also served as the first, crude guide to get novice players thinking about how their character's actions inform who they are, back when the player base were a bunch of wargamers.

Well, D&D is going to be forty years old this year, and it's long past time this mechanic grew up. Your character is your character, and who they are and how they tap into their power should be completely up to you and your GM. Your character might thing they're more righteous than they are, or they might think less, and in any case, the rest of the world is going to judge your character by his deeds, likely his most heinous deeds.

It's like this old joke: A tourist is enjoying a drink in a pub in scotland, when a besotted scot, evidently a local, accosts him, and starts rambling. He asks the tourist, "I build this building, did you know that?". "Really, replies the tourist, that's outstanding. It looks well built". The scot continues, "Aye, that it is, but do they call me 'Connor the carpenter'? No." After a brief pause, he continues, "I built that bridge on the north end of town too. But do they call me 'Connor the engineer'? NO." More agitated, he raves, "In fact, I've built or fixed nearly half of this town! But do they call me 'Connor the builder'? NO!!"

"But if they catch you sleeping with just ONE GOAT...."

AMFV
2014-01-30, 03:54 AM
D&D alignments, are, and have always been, terrible. It was a first attempt at putting some kind of code of conduct for those classes for which the background fluff required, ie: clerics and paladins (which, if you look at the source material, ought to have been just one class). They also served as the first, crude guide to get novice players thinking about how their character's actions inform who they are, back when the player base were a bunch of wargamers.

Well, D&D is going to be forty years old this year, and it's long past time this mechanic grew up. Your character is your character, and who they are and how they tap into their power should be completely up to you and your GM. Your character might thing they're more righteous than they are, or they might think less, and in any case, the rest of the world is going to judge your character by his deeds, likely his most heinous deeds.

It's like this old joke: A tourist is enjoying a drink in a pub in scotland, when a besotted scot, evidently a local, accosts him, and starts rambling. He asks the tourist, "I build this building, did you know that?". "Really, replies the tourist, that's outstanding. It looks well built". The scot continues, "Aye, that it is, but do they call me 'Connor the carpenter'? No." After a brief pause, he continues, "I built that bridge on the north end of town too. But do they call me 'Connor the engineer'? NO." More agitated, he raves, "In fact, I've built or fixed nearly half of this town! But do they call me 'Connor the builder'? NO!!"

"But if they catch you sleeping with just ONE GOAT...."

Well in-game morality systems are present in more than just D&D, and people have been known to ignore heinous crimes some of the time, not in a joking context. I'd provide examples but they're real world examples. But there have been cases where that's happened.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 08:20 AM
I was trying to draw a distinction between:
Background levels of risk (neutral)
Risking one's life for others (good)
Being willing to lay down one's life for others (good/Good)It's not "Background levels of risk is neutral" - it's "Taking risks to enrich your own life without causing undue harm to others is Neutral" (Which Pyro doesn't fit because he's not Neutral in outlook, but instead equal parts Good and Evil, with neither side being able to claim dominance)

Risking your life solely for the purpose of enriching others' lives is Good (Not merely "good").

And my problem with Lord Razier's statements about psychology and the worth of a child's life is that it's all built on the faulty assumption that the universe disproportionately cares about a bunch of pigskinned marathon-monkeys. Sure, some forces might, but the powers of Balance, Nature, and Neutrality don't differentiate between children, ratfinks, lion cubs, or gnollkits. And even Good doesn't differentiate between Children, Adults, or Senior Citizens - all intelligent life is valuable, regardless of age, and the worth of your life doesn't go down as you get older.

And the entire act Pyro committed where he DOES kill the kid is "Save and secure the futures of all except one of the orphans, because the one he didn't save amplified the risk to the others, and cost at least one of the other orphans dearly". Lord Razier is saying it would have been morally superior for Pyro to stand by helplessly like everyone else, and let ALL the orphans die a horrible flaming death (Pyro retroactively rescinded his salvation from Richard). To most people, life is priceless. However, when someone acquires a certain amount of power and responsibility, they find that life DOES have a price and a cost, and even becomes a basic currency. Sure, there are some people who see the death of one person as a horrific atrocity - but there are also people who see the mishandling of $1,000,000 USD as grossly irresponsible and unthinkable - but that's less than pocket change to the forces at work. Same with lives.

When it comes to the alignments for Larger Than Life heroes, there are three overarching questions asked - "Is the world a better place because of the direct actions and propagation of the outlook of this person, is the world an overall worse place because of this person's acts and propagation of his outlook, or is the net change about the same."

The kids that Pyro minorly ignites (And aren't at risk of serious injury, and is usually played for laughs) are those that annoy him for more petty reasons, such as insisting he casts a spell for them since he's a sorcerer, after he says "No" several times - with the end result being "Alright, I cast "Spark", now shut up and put that fire out before you get hurt."

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 10:01 AM
{{scrubbed}}

@ Scow2: Uh, what, lolno? Saving all lives is saving all lives, irresponsible use of money is irresponsible use of money. what I'm saying is that Pyro shouldn't have burned the child, that is it. he was doing well until then, then he decided to kill a child. then he suddenly descended into complete monstrous psychopath who only THINKS he is good, but really is willing to do the most monstrous chaotic evil stuff with the goal of good ends, that is Lawful Evil at best.

existence is not a war. lives are not currency. the cost is never worth it. society is not a battlefield, it is cooperation. if you cannot cooperate with your fellow human beings and not kill them, you quite clearly don't belong in society and before you say it: war is anything but society.

NEO|Phyte
2014-01-30, 10:03 AM
then he decided to kill a child.

Except he didn't.

Angel Bob
2014-01-30, 10:12 AM
Bolded the nonsense part. Someone with great power isn't demanded to use it. Nobody has the authority to say a civilian MUST throw their life away to save another that they do not know or have any relation to.

But that's not what I argued. Pyro isn't a civilian -- he's an adventurer, blessed with far more power and wealth than a common man or woman could ever dream of attaining. For him to stand by and let an orphanage burn is an expression of slothful self-obsession. I don't know how you got the idea that Lord Raziere (just noticed there's an e there) condones an adventurer letting the orphanage burn instead of saving the children.


When it comes to the alignments for Larger Than Life heroes, there are three overarching questions asked - "Is the world a better place because of the direct actions and propagation of the outlook of this person, is the world an overall worse place because of this person's acts and propagation of his outlook, or is the net change about the same."

See, that's the thing -- alignment's not about effect. It's about intent. Saving the day is a Good act, but not if the doer only did so to better their own circumstances. If they only did so for the reward, they're Neutral; if they did it to earn the trust, respect and adulation of the townsfolk so as to later screw over the townsfolk, they're Evil.

Similarly, killing is an Evil act, and you'll note it's a lot harder to justify. If the killing was out of personal vengeance and hatred, the act was Evil; if it was an impersonal job, it seems the Giant would consider it Neutral. If the killing was done reluctantly, after determining that the slain had to die or would otherwise certainly endanger the lives of many more, it could be considered Good -- or if the act was entirely an accident, and the killer subsequently felt grief and remorse for having slipped up. Thus, defending a village from roaming marauders with lethal force? A Good action, if the marauders had proven they could not be otherwise prevented from sacking the town. Shooting at a villain to keep him from activating his doomsday device? A Good act. (Running over civilians to get to the villain? Not so much -- the persons being killed by that action had done nothing to deserve it. No, stupidity or slow reaction time doesn't count. :smallannoyed:)

So ultimately, the cosmic questions to ask are: Is this "hero" willing to make meaningful sacrifices to help others, regardless of whether they respect said others? Or does this "hero" devalue the lives of those who lose their respect, and are they willing to cause pain and suffering to those people with no remorse or regret? Yes+No is Good; No+No is Neutral; No+Yes is Evil. An answer of Yes+Yes is impossible; one cannot make sacrifices for most, then torch the few, and answer "Yes" to the first question. Pyro's judge can only answer No+Yes; Pyro is Evil.

AMFV
2014-01-30, 10:54 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Or I am genuinely undamaged and actually view the entire experience as a positive. I think that's certainly a possibility. I know that without that sort of experience I would never have been able to deal with what I had to deal with.



@ Scow2: Uh, what, lolno? Saving all lives is saving all lives, irresponsible use of money is irresponsible use of money. what I'm saying is that Pyro shouldn't have burned the child, that is it. he was doing well until then, then he decided to kill a child. then he suddenly descended into complete monstrous psychopath who only THINKS he is good, but really is willing to do the most monstrous chaotic evil stuff with the goal of good ends, that is Lawful Evil at best.

existence is not a war. lives are not currency. the cost is never worth it. society is not a battlefield, it is cooperation. if you cannot cooperate with your fellow human beings and not kill them, you quite clearly don't belong in society and before you say it: war is anything but society.

In real life, maybe, maybe not, it's debatable and many philosophers have keeled over regarding it, as far as in-game... life is pretty much a currency.


But that's not what I argued. Pyro isn't a civilian -- he's an adventurer, blessed with far more power and wealth than a common man or woman could ever dream of attaining. For him to stand by and let an orphanage burn is an expression of slothful self-obsession. I don't know how you got the idea that Lord Raziere (just noticed there's an e there) condones an adventurer letting the orphanage burn instead of saving the children.

Depending on too many factors to be counted. If he's trying to prevent people from depending on him, then maybe it's not.



See, that's the thing -- alignment's not about effect. It's about intent. Saving the day is a Good act, but not if the doer only did so to better their own circumstances. If they only did so for the reward, they're Neutral; if they did it to earn the trust, respect and adulation of the townsfolk so as to later screw over the townsfolk, they're Evil.

Similarly, killing is an Evil act, and you'll note it's a lot harder to justify. If the killing was out of personal vengeance and hatred, the act was Evil; if it was an impersonal job, it seems the Giant would consider it Neutral. If the killing was done reluctantly, after determining that the slain had to die or would otherwise certainly endanger the lives of many more, it could be considered Good -- or if the act was entirely an accident, and the killer subsequently felt grief and remorse for having slipped up. Thus, defending a village from roaming marauders with lethal force? A Good action, if the marauders had proven they could not be otherwise prevented from sacking the town. Shooting at a villain to keep him from activating his doomsday device? A Good act. (Running over civilians to get to the villain? Not so much -- the persons being killed by that action had done nothing to deserve it. No, stupidity or slow reaction time doesn't count. :smallannoyed:)
[Citation needed], killing may or may not be an evil act, depending on the results, morality is not just about intent in D&D, it's also about the end result as well. I would rate them as roughly equal parts. If you're executing the marauders then it's lawful and good.



So ultimately, the cosmic questions to ask are: Is this "hero" willing to make meaningful sacrifices to help others, regardless of whether they respect said others? Or does this "hero" devalue the lives of those who lose their respect, and are they willing to cause pain and suffering to those people with no remorse or regret? Yes+No is Good; No+No is Neutral; No+Yes is Evil. An answer of Yes+Yes is impossible; one cannot make sacrifices for most, then torch the few, and answer "Yes" to the first question. Pyro's judge can only answer No+Yes; Pyro is Evil.

Causing pain and suffering isn't inherently evil, for example one might have to ration during wartime. This causes pain and suffering, and isn't evil.

hamishspence
2014-01-30, 10:57 AM
The cause of the suffering is the shortage, not the rationing policy.

"Harming/threatening the Innocent" is one of the things Paladins are obliged to oppose - implication - it defaults to Evil.

AMFV
2014-01-30, 11:02 AM
The cause of the suffering is the shortage, not the rationing policy.

"Harming/threatening the Innocent" is one of the things Paladins are obliged to oppose - implication - it defaults to Evil.

That's not necessarily the case, associating with evil people (particularly to redeem them) isn't evil, and the Paladins are banned from that as well. So against a paladin's code isn't exactly tantamount to being evil.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 12:53 PM
But that's not what I argued. Pyro isn't a civilian -- he's an adventurer, blessed with far more power and wealth than a common man or woman could ever dream of attaining. For him to stand by and let an orphanage burn is an expression of slothful self-obsession. I don't know how you got the idea that Lord Raziere (just noticed there's an e there) condones an adventurer letting the orphanage burn instead of saving the children.Pyro IS a civilian, just as much as anyone else. He is not a soldier, officer of the law, or any other official paid by or mandated by the state to be on-call to save others. If he does so, it is of his own volition and desires.


See, that's the thing -- alignment's not about effect. It's about intent. Saving the day is a Good act, but not if the doer only did so to better their own circumstances. If they only did so for the reward, they're Neutral; if they did it to earn the trust, respect and adulation of the townsfolk so as to later screw over the townsfolk, they're Evil. By this standard, Pyro is Good.

Similarly, killing is an Evil act, and you'll note it's a lot harder to justify. If the
killing was out of personal vengeance and hatred, the act was Evil; if it was an impersonal job, it seems the Giant would consider it Neutral. If the killing was done reluctantly, after determining that the slain had to die or would otherwise certainly endanger the lives of many more, it could be considered Good -- or if the act was entirely an accident, and the killer subsequently felt grief and remorse for having slipped up. Thus, defending a village from roaming marauders with lethal force? A Good action, if the marauders had proven they could not be otherwise prevented from sacking the town. Shooting at a villain to keep him from activating his doomsday device? A Good act. (Running over civilians to get to the villain? Not so much -- the persons being killed by that action had done nothing to deserve it. No, stupidity or slow reaction time doesn't count. :smallannoyed:)By this standard Pyro is also Evil, in addition to being Good from above.


So ultimately, the cosmic questions to ask are: Is this "hero" willing to make meaningful sacrifices to help others, regardless of whether they respect said others? Or does this "hero" devalue the lives of those who lose their respect, and are they willing to cause pain and suffering to those people with no remorse or regret? Yes+No is Good; No+No is Neutral; No+Yes is Evil. An answer of Yes+Yes is impossible; one cannot make sacrifices for most, then torch the few, and answer "Yes" to the first question. Pyro's judge can only answer No+Yes; Pyro is Evil.The cosmic question to ask is "Is the world more Good, or more Evil, for this person's passing through?"

Requiring all Good people to say "Yes" to the first question with its qualifier that it extends to those you don't respect (Without regard for why you don't respect them) puts an unreasonable burden on "Good".

Life is a currency, and in fact the currency ALL economies are built on, because Life is Time, and Time is Money.

NEO|Phyte
2014-01-30, 01:12 PM
So ultimately, the cosmic questions to ask are: Is this "hero" willing to make meaningful sacrifices to help others, regardless of whether they respect said others?

This cosmic question is hilariously vague.

What happens if Paladin McGoodguy turns down Hidolf Atler's offer to set aside his Good-granted powers of paladinness and help him kill all the gnomes? Clearly he is unwilling to make a meaningful sacrifice (giving up his paladin abilities) to help someone.

Angel Bob
2014-01-30, 02:40 PM
Okay, admittedly I went a little too vague there. We all understand, though, that Good is willing to make personal sacrifices to help the needs of the many and the destitute, correct? That was the intent of the post, if not the effect.

OldTrees1
2014-01-30, 02:50 PM
Well even the short term is still relevant, he's wasting his time, and that's something, unless you're arguing that volunteering isn't Good, and I'd argue it is, even in roleplay time is something you never get back, and that's a pretty big risk.

Agreed. I noted that time was sacrificed in a previous post.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 03:24 PM
Agreed. I noted that time was sacrificed in a previous post.

Time, and a sizeable chunk of health. And a not-negligible risk of death for non-personal gain.

russdm
2014-01-30, 03:29 PM
The kids that Pyro minorly ignites (And aren't at risk of serious injury, and is usually played for laughs) are those that annoy him for more petty reasons, such as insisting he casts a spell for them since he's a sorcerer, after he says "No" several times - with the end result being "Alright, I cast "Spark", now shut up and put that fire out before you get hurt."

This is wrong because burning hands does at minimum 5 points of damage. So the kid is definitely taking 5 fire damage. It could get as high as 20, which means there is a complete chance that it kills him. Also, why does he need to employ his spells on them to prove he is a caster? Aren't there other targets available? Does he simply not care? There are plenty of spells he could have as a sorcerer that he could use without actually harming anyone to prove he is a sorcerer.

Scow2
2014-01-30, 03:34 PM
He doesn't use Burning Hands on anybody he doesn't want dead or severely burned. He uses Spark, or Energy-Substituted (Ifrit Bloodline) Ray of Frost (as a Strike an Item, not Kill a Person, attack) to "Minorly Ignite" people, which is a Cantrip(PF) or At-Will(4e) power, so it's no resource cost to him. In 4e or D&D Next, it deals nonlethal damage. And in Savage Worlds, it's merely a "Stagger", or "Reeling" in Ironclaw - no damage dealt at all.

And the reason he's casting an offensive spell on them is to demonstrate his annoyance and remind them NOT to pester him to cast spells.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-30, 05:39 PM
Or I am genuinely undamaged and actually view the entire experience as a positive. I think that's certainly a possibility. I know that without that sort of experience I would never have been able to deal with what I had to deal with.


my condolences.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 03:06 AM
He doesn't use Burning Hands on anybody he doesn't want dead or severely burned. He uses Spark, or Energy-Substituted (Ifrit Bloodline) Ray of Frost (as a Strike an Item, not Kill a Person, attack) to "Minorly Ignite" people, which is a Cantrip(PF) or At-Will(4e) power, so it's no resource cost to him. In 4e or D&D Next, it deals nonlethal damage. And in Savage Worlds, it's merely a "Stagger", or "Reeling" in Ironclaw - no damage dealt at all.

And the reason he's casting an offensive spell on them is to demonstrate his annoyance and remind them NOT to pester him to cast spells.

All well and good- but this is the 3.5 section of the forum.

Not every DM is inclined to fiat "Having 1 Item Of Clothing Set On Fire" or "Having Hair Set on Fire" so that it's more harmless than the RAW indicates.

The original topic was "how to play a Neutral character in a Good campaign".

The Giant himself has said that a neutral character:

a) Doesn't do anything
or
b) Does an equal number of good and evil things.

Now in a typical adventure, you rescue the princess, save the helpless villagers, reveal a plot to take down the rightful king, ect. And since most of your party members are usually good, you'll get a couple of cats down from trees and help old ladies cross the road, too.

Short of burning down a village, how is a character supposed to stay neutral after doing so many good things?
Which may include:

"What evil acts can I commit, to keep my Neutral alignment from changing to Good, that will not cause the rest of the party, who are Good, to object strenuously, and even kick my character out?"

Spore
2014-01-31, 07:12 AM
"What evil acts can I commit, to keep my Neutral alignment from changing to Good, that will not cause the rest of the party, who are Good, to object strenuously, and even kick my character out?"

Sounds forced. Why don't just accept a shift to good when it's not mandatory that you stay neutral?

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 07:12 AM
If you're playing a LN (or CN) druid, a shift to Good means you lose your powers.

Come to think of it - the same applies to Incarnates from Magic of Incarnum.

DodgerH2O
2014-01-31, 11:42 AM
As usual for Alignment threads, all this really shows is that the D&D Alignment system doesn't really cover fringe situations well.

In "real life" Mr. Pyro would be considered by some people to be a cruel, impulsive person with a streak of generosity, and by other people to be a kind, generous person with a streak of impulsive cruelty. Lacking Protection from Good or Smite Evil, it really doesn't matter what he "actually is."

The Alignment system doesn't deal with how others perceive your character. You can have a LG character who all the townsfolk think is cruel and evil for some contrived reason, but if a Paladin tries to smite the character it won't do extra damage. These are the limitations of the system, and the issues with alignment restrictions on abilities and alignment-oriented spells should be handled on a case by case basis by the DM.

(Personally Pyro sounds squarely in the Chaotic Neutral camp to me. If you want to be really silly about it, make him shift to Evil for a week or two after using pain, fear and violence for petty reasons and Good after doing a particularly heroic and selfless deed. Alternately have him ping as "slightly Evil/Good" by detection but unaffected by spells.)

Scow2
2014-01-31, 12:47 PM
All well and good- but this is the 3.5 section of the forum.No it isn't. Look up at the bar. It's
"Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns"
Not
"Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 > Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns"

But the overall part of the character was someone who could be relied on to do the right/most heroic thing, while also tending to do things he really oughn't not - someone like Sir Lancelot.

Or at least be the character to suggest an equal/similar number of evil and good solutions to a problem, even if he doesn't act on them.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 12:54 PM
No it isn't. Look up at the bar. It's
"Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns"
Not
"Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 > Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns"
Sorry about that - fixed.


But the overall part of the character was someone who could be relied on to do the right/most heroic thing, while also tending to do things he really oughn't not - someone like Sir Lancelot.
How does Lancelot treat "ordinary annoying peasants" in the mythology?

Scow2
2014-01-31, 12:56 PM
How does Lancelot treat "ordinary annoying peasants" in the mythology?"They were wedding guests!"

Of course, I should have specified the Spammalot version of Sir Lancelot.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 01:02 PM
I could see DMs having such a character as a CE NPC in their games.

OldTrees1
2014-01-31, 01:20 PM
(Personally Pyro sounds squarely in the Chaotic Neutral camp to me. If you want to be really silly about it, make him shift to Evil for a week or two after using pain, fear and violence for petty reasons and Good after doing a particularly heroic and selfless deed. Alternately have him ping as "slightly Evil/Good" by detection but unaffected by spells.)

I like these "silly" options.

Scow2
2014-01-31, 01:25 PM
But the 'problem' with those "Silly" options is that the DMG explicitly says someone who changes alignment frequently like that is Neutral.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 02:51 PM
I think WoTC's Save My Game article said it best when it comes to excessive alignment switching:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060505a


Players Flip-Flop on Their Alignments

Alignment should be a determining factor in how you play your character; it's a cipher for the approach to life and the world you say you have adopted. If, like with this joker, it doesn't, then you have to remember the other part of alignment: It is how life and the universe approach you. If you act evil, speak evil, and do evil, then when someone casts detect evil on you it's going to come up showing that you are evil, regardless of what you have written on your character sheet. Your holy weapon will start giving you a negative level, your good NPC allies will abandon or turn on you, and all the crying that "I'm good, I'm good, see it's right here!" doesn't mean a darn thing.

Scow2
2014-01-31, 03:05 PM
I think WoTC's Save My Game article said it best when it comes to excessive alignment switching:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060505aAnd if a person acts Good, Speaks Good, and does Good, then they are Good. That article answers the question of someone who chooses to write down a different alignment whenever they feel like (And assumes their actions are primarily Evil), not someone who actually engages in behaviors that correspond to 'flip-flopping' alignments in a non-entirely inconsistent way (Their behavior is consistent with itself, but not with the description of any one alignment) without heed paid to their actual alignment they may or may not have written down on a sheet.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 03:51 PM
Obliviously Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObliviouslyEvil) characters, who do not accept that what they've been doing is Evil, do crop up a lot.

OldTrees1
2014-01-31, 04:03 PM
But the 'problem' with those "Silly" options is that the DMG explicitly says someone who changes alignment frequently like that is Neutral.

Source? Because that sentence is contradictory.

Changes alignment frequently means their alignment changes frequently.
They may temporarily have a Neutral alignment but their alignment changes frequently and thus they are not Neutral.

hamishspence
2014-01-31, 04:09 PM
Source? Because that sentence is contradictory.

p134 of the DMG:


Indecisiveness indicates Neutrality
Wishy-washy characters should just be Neutral. If a character changes alignment over and over again during a campaign, what's really happened is that the character hasn't made a choice, and thus she is neutral.

It also goes on to say "there are exceptions to all of the above" though.

OldTrees1
2014-01-31, 11:13 PM
p134 of the DMG:

It also goes on to say "there are exceptions to all of the above" though.

Thanks. That quote resolves the apparent contradiction.

Scow2
2014-02-01, 01:28 AM
It's more of a case where someone who behaves in a manner that would indicate frequent alignment changes is Neutral - they haven't actually committed to an alignment (Especially if it's an internally consistent alignment) - such as with a character that spends a few weeks [Doing Lawful Good Things with a Lawful Good Mentality], then a few later weeks [Doing Neutral Evil Things with a Neutral Evil Mentality], he's Neutral, not Lawful Good during the first set of weeks, and Neutral Evil the second set of weeks.

Especially if he tries changing alignment as a New Year's resolution and spends a few days/weeks making good on it before forgetting it again and reverting to his normal behavior (In which he's his previous alignment, not Neutral, despite the New Years Resolution-induced attempt at an alignment change)

Kitten Champion
2014-02-01, 05:01 AM
I think it's a convenient alignment for newer players who aren't used to the concept of RPing. You can ignore your PC's agency and just act in accordance with the other good/evil PC motives, with the simple neutral justification of supporting your allies. If you've got nothing in mind for what your character should be feeling or what sort of actions he/she/it will likely be taking, neutral gives you room to figure things out which is understandable within the game's mechanics and settings.

Most of my characters are neutral, they're motivated by personal interests rather than ideology and are apolitical beyond not wanting to get on the Law's bad side if they can help it. Possibly because I design them to be used in Exalted or Pathfinder interchangeably. Actually, most of my campaigns are designed to be neutral. Rather than fighting Evil or saving innocents, they're more about advancing the characters' goals, survival, or exploration. I try to leave the themes and questions I explore open-ended, so whichever action they choose to take can be rationalized.

For a good campaign? Rather than relying on some altruistic ethos or sense of duty towards the community, appeal either to self-interest or rationality (the two not necessarily being interchangeable) and you've got a workable motivation. Presumably, unless the Good characters are fools or suicidal, it's not hard for Good to make sense. Evil, on the other hand, would require far more convincing and cunning to get a neutral character involved.

TheOOB
2014-02-01, 05:09 AM
Your alignment does not determine your actions, your actions determine your alignment. Alignment really isn't that important(unless you're a paladin). You can easily have an evil character in a good campaign, as long as they are loyal to the group and can work with them what's the problem?

But anyways, neutral character is not someone who has no opinion on alignment or does nothing, and they are defiantly not someone who does both good and evil acts(someone who performs evil acts with regularity is evil, regardless of the good they also do). A neutral person is someone who is unwilling to take significant risks or make significant sacrifices to help an innocent, but is also unable to significantly hurt an innocent to advance their goals(an innocent being someone with whom the character has no personal relationship with and to their knowledge has done nothing wrong). They are different from good characters in that they are not willing to be selfless, but they are also not malicious. A neutral character also cares about alignment, most neutral characters greatly prefer good people to evil people, for example.

Also, a very very VERY important point. Regardless of alignment characters can have friends and enemies. An evil character can have friends who they would lay down their life for, and a good character can have enemies that they will hunt down without mercy. Personal relationships supersede alignment.

Jay R
2014-02-01, 09:55 AM
And if a person acts Good, Speaks Good, and does Good, then they are Good.

Usually, but it depends on why they are doing it. My current thief acts Good, speaks Good and does Good, because he travels with a Paladin, and being part of that group is more lucrative than thieving alone. If he sees a chance to steal something valuable, in absolute confidence that the Paladin will not ever find out, he would do it instantly. He's Neutral.

Scow2
2014-02-02, 02:13 AM
I'm coming back to this point
existence is not a war. lives are not currency. the cost is never worth it. society is not a battlefield, it is cooperation. if you cannot cooperate with your fellow human beings and not kill them, you quite clearly don't belong in society and before you say it: war is anything but society.

Because... actually, it is. We're talking about Alignment, which IS a war, and Lives and Souls are the currency. Anyone who advances the cause of Good significantly more than the cause of Evil is Good, and likewise anyone who advances the cause of Evil significantly more than Good is Evil.

Settings like Eberron put the Cosmic Alignment War behind other concerns, while other settings thrust it to the forefront. A paladin of the Silver Flame is not committing Evil by striking down Evil people on sight, but he IS grossly violating his code of conduct to protect and defend society from supernatural threats, so he still Falls. He's still considered "Good" for purposes of spells and other alignment-based powers, though, but nobody gives a **** socially about his standing because people in the setting care less about Cosmic Alignment than they care which Zodiac Sign a person is born under.

Tragak
2014-02-02, 08:59 AM
ALIGNMENT IS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PERSON YOU ARE, NOT WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS YOU DO.

A Good person is not somebody who does Good things for any reason, a Good person is a person who does anything for Good reasons.

The fact that there are no Good reasons to commit Evil actions does not mean that a Good person is not allowed to commit Evil, it means that he doesn't want to.

A Neutral person is not somebody who does Neutral things for any reason, a Neutral person is a person who does anything for Neutral reasons.

The fact that there are not very many Neutral reasons to commit Evil actions does not mean that a Neutral person is not allowed to commit very much Evil, it means that he doesn't want to.

If the Good people in the party do Good things for Good reasons, and the Neutral person does Good things for Neutral reasons, then what's the problem?

TuggyNE
2014-02-02, 11:28 PM
The fact that there are no Good reasons to commit Evil actions does not mean that a Good person is not allowed to commit Evil, it means that he doesn't want to.

And Tragak knocks it out of the park.

Scow2
2014-02-02, 11:32 PM
But a neutral character might (In about the same frequency as he wants to commit Good acts.

TuggyNE
2014-02-03, 01:39 AM
But a neutral character might (In about the same frequency as he wants to commit Good acts.

TBH that last post was less about arguing one way or another and more about appreciating a bit of wisdom in general. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2014-02-03, 02:22 AM
A paladin of the Silver Flame is not committing Evil by striking down Evil people on sight, but he IS grossly violating his code of conduct to protect and defend society from supernatural threats, so he still Falls.

"Murder" in D&D is considered an Evil act.

And killing without justifying factors like self defence (victim having an evil alignment is not a justifying factor on its own) is Murder.

This applies whether the person is a Paladin, a Paladin of Freedom, some other class or PRC that is penalized for Evil acts, or just a character with 1 Exalted feat.

Scow2
2014-02-03, 10:47 AM
"Murder" in D&D is considered an Evil act.

And killing without justifying factors like self defence (victim having an evil alignment is not a justifying factor on its own) is Murder.

This applies whether the person is a Paladin, a Paladin of Freedom, some other class or PRC that is penalized for Evil acts, or just a character with 1 Exalted feat."He needed killing" is a perfectly valid defense for killing someone.

hamishspence
2014-02-03, 10:56 AM
"He needed killing" is a perfectly valid defense for killing someone.

"he's evil aligned therefore he needs killing", however, is not valid logic in D&D.

As the Eberron Campaign Setting book helpfully points out, "Not every evil character deserves to be attacked by adventurers".

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.

This applies to other characters as well - not just Silver Flame Paladins.

Scow2
2014-02-03, 11:07 AM
That is because, in Eberron, the battle for a functional society and security for its citizens is more important than the Cosmic Battle of Good and Evil. Killing Evil people on sight for no reason other than They're Evil is not an Evil act - but it might as well be one to anyone who cares (Paladins and Variant Paladin PrCs) because they are committed to a greater cause than mere "Good"

A Tad Insane
2014-02-03, 01:02 PM
I think it's safe to say we hit the philosophical point where everything is held to the millimeter of our own values and ideas. The point where even the worse and better argument take their leave. The point where everyone is right and wrong, depending on who you ask. The point where the best answer is "This is Sparta!"

hamishspence
2014-02-03, 01:29 PM
Killing Evil people on sight for no reason other than They're Evil is not an Evil act - but it might as well be one to anyone who cares (Paladins and Variant Paladin PrCs) because they are committed to a greater cause than mere "Good"

Way I see it-

In a BoED game, with clerics of a Cause (Good) and other characters with at least 1 Exalted feat- devoted to Good first and foremost - killing evil people on sight simply because "they're evil" (perhaps the characters all have custom magic items granting them Detect Evil at will) - would be considered Evil.

Because the book actually states, that for violence to be "acceptable" it must have Good Intentions and Just Cause - and an evil alignment, on its own, is not "Just Cause".

Slipperychicken
2014-02-03, 01:54 PM
Because the book actually states, that for violence to be "acceptable" it must have Good Intentions and Just Cause - and an evil alignment, on its own, is not "Just Cause".

IIRC, killing people just because of their alignment isn't kosher. I don't recall where I read that though

Fiends and other truly irredeemable creatures (i.e. evil outsiders, most of the "always evil" creatures who are ~95-99% evil) are fair game, however, because they have almost no hope of redemption and will do harm so long as they exist.


BoED page 8, Excerpt from "Redeeming Evil"

Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are
utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the
Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable
or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost
entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or
at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert
them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but
there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.

hamishspence
2014-02-03, 02:03 PM
IIRC, killing people just because of their alignment isn't kosher. I don't recall where I read that though
Possibly BoED or Eberron Campaign Setting. Heroes of Horror also makes a point of saying that since many Evil NPCs (especially LE ones) are not in fact criminals - smite on sight tends to lead to the PC being arrested and thrown in the dungeon (probably to await murder charges).


Fiends and other truly irredeemable creatures (i.e. evil outsiders, most of the "always evil" creatures who are ~95-99% evil) are fair game, however, because they have almost no hope of redemption and will do harm so long as they exist.

Later works occasionally included nonevil examples of fiends, and of "always evil" monsters like chromatic dragons - still, the gamebooks tend to assume that under normal circumstances, they are "fair game" as you say.