Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
Sure. Which ties into something several people have pointed out (including me). One action should not an alignment change make. It should be about the pattern of behavior over time.
This is why 1st edition AD&D featured an alignment graph, with zones for each of the alignments. Movement on the graph is almost never directly from one pole to another, but by degrees. Moving into Evil territory takes either a single very seriously Evil act that "pegs the needle" into Evil immediately, or a smaller Evil action when you are already close to the edge of your alignment close to the Evil zone.

But.. Interesting thought experiment. Is a terminator "evil"?...If we take the "what is the motivation/emotion/objective?" behind the act completely out of the equation (just a machine following its programming), is that creature "evil".
Someone programmed the machine, and determined what goals it would attempt to accomplish. A terminator that is incapable of violating its programming is an extension of the will of its programmer, and therefore has the same alignment. Skynet was Evil, and the goals it set for its terminators were evil, so the terminators it programmed were Evil.

However, a terminator, which is incapable of violating its programming, is not asEvil as its creator. It takes merely changing its programming to change its alignment completely. There is little to no "alignment inertia" because its actions were completely involuntary in the first place. A creature like a terminator, with pre-programmed goals that do have an alignment and enough intelligence to be considered sentient but no free will, is as close to True Neutral as you can get without actually being True Neutral.

In D&D 3.5, creatures without intelligence are either True Neutral (like Golems) or Neutral Evil (like non-sentient undead). Non-sentient undead like skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil only because it is an Evil action to create them.