Just a note, but I have it on good authority (and evil authority too for that matter) that Insanity has no alignment.
I have often thought that the "alignment" neutral only truly applies to animals (who act on instinct) and certain types of insane individuals, given the sort of behavior that would seem to be demanded of one who was truly morally unaligned, i.e., reduced to animal morality.
There might also be a case for very simple, morally undeveloped individuals. I would think they'd tend to have low wisdom and/or intelligence and be in cultural backwaters.
Just a note, but I have it on good authority (and evil authority too for that matter) that Insanity has no alignment.I have often thought that the "alignment" neutral only truly applies to animals (who act on instinct) and certain types of insane individuals, given the sort of behavior that would seem to be demanded of one who was truly morally unaligned, i.e., reduced to animal morality.
I've heard this several times, but I don't really agree with it. This thread is full of people voicing the opinion that mortal alignment is much weaker and more dilute than the alignments of outsiders. While I don't think of it in quite that stark of terms, I do feel similarly in a general way. Given that, it's not hard to imagine someone who just doesn't register enough to fall under any descriptor. That's my default assumption of a neutral character; not the individual on some bizarre quest for universal "balance" (which, to me, reeks of something created from the game's alignment mechanics; as opposed to something which generally exists in the real world, such as good, evil, order, and chaos, and is merely described by the game's mechanics). I also agree with others in this thread that most people are probably true neutral. They don't wish anyone any harm, but won't really go out of their way to do good; they generally follow the rules and laws, but don't mind bending or breaking them when it's advantageous to do so and they don't think they'll be caught. In short, most people aren't good, aren't evil, aren't orderly, and aren't chaotic. They're just neutral.
I hear ya. This is always rumbling around in the background of alignment discussions: how to balance understanding alignment as conviction/commitment vs. understanding it as an accounting of total actions.
My thoughts on neutral characters:
They don't really go for evil as they don't really want to hurt people. They would be good, but that takes too much work, and they would rather just do what they want to at the time.
IF they can help someone else, and it doesn't really take much time or effort they will help them. IF that person is someone special to them they will put more time and effort into helping that person. If the easiest way to get what they want involves harming someone else they will do it, if there is a slightly harder way to get what they want, but it involves less risk, and still gets them what they want they will do that instead.
These folks are generally the morally unsophisticated. Don't what works for them at the moment with little overall thought on it.
I think my problem here is this: all actions are either good or evil (= not good) by intention. Intention is the part of the act that the agent has the most power over, therefore it is the part that is morally relevant (e.g., I may intend to pull you out of the burning wreckage, but not be strong enough to do it). So my end/goal is my intention in acting. A good intention in an act produces a good act. (The only thing that this may not cover is if you think that some acts are inherently good or evil, not matter what one's intention is. But these may be covered if those cases have goals that are evil.)
Ok, so eating food with the intention of getting full. Good or Evil?
Ok, so eating food with the intention of getting full. Good or Evil?
Such an act doesn't register morally. It is morally neutral.
I think my problem here is this: all actions are either good or evil (= not good) by intention. Intention is the part of the act that the agent has the most power over, therefore it is the part that is morally relevant (e.g., I may intend to pull you out of the burning wreckage, but not be strong enough to do it). So my end/goal is my intention in acting. A good intention in an act produces a good act. (The only thing that this may not cover is if you think that some acts are inherently good or evil, not matter what one's intention is. But these may be covered if those cases have goals that are evil.)
I understand that, but I think for most neutral people (including the extremes of LN and CN) don't take enough morally significant actions, or the morally significant actions they take oscillate between good and evil and/or are relatively weak even if morally significant. Thus, they don't really register.
Another justification for the D&D alignment system is that some actions which many of us in the real world would classify as good or evil just don't register in D&D land. There is a broader scope of what constitutes moral neutrality.
Finally, it's important to remember that many/most people in the real world tend to think of concepts such as good and evil as rather subjective. In D&D land, they are objective. There are places which physically exist, and are accessible by mortals, which are objectively good and evil (see: Upper and Lower Planes). There are creatures which physically embody these principles. There are magical powers which are fueled by them. So, it is possible in D&D land for good and evil to exist outside of actions and intentions. They just are, like electromagnetism or gravity.
It has been said before that these differences, if explored fully, make D&D alignment a system either fundamentally flawed or fundamentally alien to our real-world understanding. I'm not sure if I'd go that far; but it does stand that D&D morality has its own rules which must be accounted for in the quest to come to grips with and understand the system.
Clearly a good act. The intention to get one's nourishment (as I take "full") is a good act, directed towards a good goal (sustaining life). It may not compare strongly to "saving little old lady from getting hit by a bus," but it is a good act.
Don't worry, I don't plan on adopting the alignment system as my guide in life, but I'm still somewhat optimistic about understanding it in such a way that it can be more meaningful than certain interpretations of it have been.
On the issue that you (Saern) continue to press, I think one possibility would be for the GM to judge if it is a situation where intention or "registering on the overall moral scale [of actions]" is most relevant.
Depends on what the food isOk, so eating food with the intention of getting full. Good or Evil?Such an act doesn't register morally. It is morally neutral.
Babies, and the eater isn't starving to death, and the babies aren't already dead? Evil.
Just about any other substance not related to the above example? Morally neutral, unless it's chocolate. Then it's also evil. But strawberries are always good.
I think neutral IS the default alignment for most humans anyway. Moral relativism, tribalism, de-humanizing of enemies...the average person probably wouldn't even believe in alignment. I don't have it discussed in-character in my games anyway. (for example while there are knightly orders I make paladins stand out)