I always saw TN (or N) as just passive/reactive.
They don't go out of their way to do anything or accomplish anything.
They are not goal-driven. They don;t confront people. They're just living day to day. They are not usually swayed by prose or pretty words, but can be by cold logic. Other than that, they are reactive. You try to kill someone in their presence, "My name is Paul, and that s**t is between ya'll". You try to kill them, then it's on like donkey kong, to the death. There is no mercy, you messed with the wrong person, survival of the fittest, this will not occur again.
Don't start nothin, won't be nothin.
CN- any backing, at all, for that?He acts to what he personally thinks is best - previous or CURRENT directives be damned, and tries to to the line between good and evil.
LE- Think less punisher and more angry barbarian seeking vengeance for his people. No quarter given, but we're not outright burning orphanages. As in we're "do[ing] what seems to be a good idea."The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sigh.
Per SRD
"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”)."
Going to just ignore character traits added to the CN example.
Back to the OP. Yeah, True Neutral's totally doable. Has to do with where convictions are and value of life/death, not behaving on instinct. My last 3 characters have been largely neutral.
What about the mercenary who isn't outright evil? He'll break a contract if it makes sense, or take lives if he has to, but generally avoids bloodshed and other such.
He obviously isn't either good or evil. But I don't see anything that implies he is Neutral instead of Chaotic.
Here's a short howto:
Learn to say Kchäsefondue
Learn to speak more slowly
Develop a liking to fraudulent cheese (which has many holes in it, thus appearing to be more than it is)
Get a weapon that has a blade, a blunt instrument, a pike, a grappling hook, a lock pick, a can opener, a compass, a saw, a file, a pair of scissors, a magnifying glass, a length of rope, a toothpick, a tinderbox, a scalpel, a spoon, a fork, a whetstone, as well as masterwork tools for every class in the core rules. At the very least.
;-)Hehe. All this sounds very gnome ;)
Huh? I would not relate gnomes to fondue in any significant way. I'd peck their talking speed as more of a frantic pace than the leisurely way the swiss are accused of speaking. I can totally see the swiss army knife being gnomish - those little maniacs can't do something as a hobby. They have to go all obsessive about everything.
Sounds like a certain group of people interested in a certain game I know... <_<
I love Switzerland.
Well, appropriately enough, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, concerning our neighbours to the south ;-)
About the swiss knife, the modern version also holds a USB key :D
What doesn't? :)
I always saw TN (or N) as just passive/reactive.
They don't go out of their way to do anything or accomplish anything.
They are not goal-driven. They don;t confront people. They're just living day to day. They are not usually swayed by prose or pretty words, but can be by cold logic. Other than that, they are reactive. You try to kill someone in their presence, "My name is Paul, and that s**t is between ya'll". You try to kill them, then it's on like donkey kong, to the death. There is no mercy, you messed with the wrong person, survival of the fittest, this will not occur again.
Don't start nothin, won't be nothin.
That might be one way too see TN, but it's by far not the only one.
In my opinion it's the standard alignment.
Most heroes are outstanding individuals, so it's not that big surprise that they tend to have an outstanding alignment but a peasant for example is not that eager to sacrifice himself for the greater good, possibly did something unjust but of course he's not evil, he's neither anarchic nor does he blindly follow law (except if he fears the law for it's enforced by harsh means) - most likely YOU there in front of your computer are of neutral alignment.I have always played "true neutral" as a character who is all about balance. Balance between law and chaos, and balance between good and evil. When a true neutral character evaluates a situation they ask themselves if law or chaos has gotten out of balance, or if good or evil has. Then they work to restore the proper balance.I don't know about that - "Hey, what a beautiful day! Everyone is happy, no evil in sight, flowers are blooming, guess I have to restore balance, hand me a torch and a knife!"
As I said, my true neutral characters do not equate good and evil, so my characters would say "Hey, what a beautiful day! Everyone is happy, flowers are blooming, there's enough temptation to offer people appropriate choices, looks like a good day to spend at the beach."
True neutral characters are not "True Stupid."
I'd go with "Hey, what a beautiful day! Everyone is happy, flowers are blooming, let's go to the beach!"
Because as a neutral character, he won't do any crusades for or against good, evil, order or chaos. If you threaten the things that are close to his heart, like his family, home village, or something he has a personal interest in, he'll come at you, but other than that, he just won't care.
No interest in the level of goodness/evil or order/chaos in the world, and no urge to adjust those levels in any direction.
I'd go with "Hey, what a beautiful day! Everyone is happy, flowers are blooming, let's go to the beach!"
Because as a neutral character, he won't do any crusades for or against good, evil, order or chaos. If you threaten the things that are close to his heart, like his family, home village, or something he has a personal interest in, he'll come at you, but other than that, he just won't care.
No interest in the level of goodness/evil or order/chaos in the world, and no urge to adjust those levels in any direction.
This is one interpretation of "true neutral." It is an interpretation I frankly don't agree with, but it's one many people use. How this is different from lawful don't-give-a-crap is beyond me, but people continue to assert that an amoral don't-give-a-crap character is true neutral.
I would call a person whose attitude is "don't give a crap" "True non-aligned" not "true neutral."
True neutral means the character has some interest in balance.
That's my interpretation and I'm sticking with it. :)
It's just that "balance" doesn't mean "evil = good" it means there is some level of goodness and evil that is necessary for a healthy world, and that level is somewhere north of "good = evil" but quite a bit south of "paladin lawful stupid." As I said earlier, a true neutral character would most likely oppose criminalizing gambling or prostitution, but would be OK with criminalizing murder because murder is an unbalancing act in itself.
"I'm True Neutral. I go both ways." -Julia Greenhilt
Sorry i just couldent resist =)
Also True Neutral on this Tread
Could care less, one way or the other :)
Also True Neutral on this Tread
Could care less, one way or the other :)
LOL, then you're not true neutral, you're true don't give a crap.
My opinion.
True Neutral is an evil person who has deluded himself into thinking that when he does evil, or lets evil pass, that he is in fact really working for some inane, impossible "balance".
Animals are "Neutral" because they do not know good and evil. it isn't due to balance- it is due to having such a low intelligence that they can't form the concepts in their mind. They hunt to eat, the kill to eat and the fight to kill or to drive you away.
Anyone with an intelligence over 2 can form the abstract concept sufficient enough to realize that you can do good or you can do evil.
The "neutral" person who commits an evil act to balance out a good one- is evil: not neutral.
The "neutral" person who watches idly by while evil happens because it "balances" some greater good or whatever is just enabling evil.
Neutral is a lie, told to oneself, to promote evil. They may think they are neutral but they aren't.
Remember: What you put on your character sheet is what you think you are. The DM doesn't necessarily have to go by that. He goes by your actions. Doing evil is evil. There is no "balance".
"I don't care if he is doing evil" is evil who has deluded himself into thinking he isn't.
-S
This is one interpretation of "true neutral." It is an interpretation I frankly don't agree with
I don't agree with any interpretation of lawful anything, because order is inferior. Doesn't have anything to do with anything, though.
, but it's one many people use. How this is different from lawful don't-give-a-crap is beyond me, but people continue to assert that an amoral don't-give-a-crap character is true neutral.
Lawful neutral means "good or evil are no important, but order is". (True) neutral means "none of the alignment components are important".
I would call a person whose attitude is "don't give a crap" "True non-aligned" not "true neutral."
The game would, though. The neutral alignment (a.k.a. true neutral or neutral neutral) is what you get when you're neutral in regards to both order/chaos and good/evil. That can mean that you don't give a crap about any of the other concepts, or that you are actually pro-balance. Just as Lawful neutral can mean both "order above everything" or "neither really good nor really evil, but very disciplined".
There is no one right definition for true neutral any more than for the other alignments.
The game doesn't differ between "active" and "passive" alignment components (for example: "Active good" is when you crusade against evil and champion the causes of goodness while "passive good" means you are just a benevolent person who will help others even if they don't know them personally and helping them can be inconvenient (or even dangerous).
True neutral means the character has some interest in balance.
Wrong. It can mean a commitment to balance. It doesn't have to.
As I said earlier, a true neutral character would most likely oppose criminalizing gambling or prostitution, but would be OK with criminalizing murder because murder is an unbalancing act in itself.
Not necessarily. The neutral character might not give a damn about either. He might be someone who doesn't lose any sleep over murder, as long as it's nobody he knows.
.
..
...
....
.....
Q: Can you play True Neutral alignment?
A: Maybe. Maybe not.
True Neutral is an evil person who has deluded himself into thinking that when he does evil, or lets evil pass, that he is in fact really working for some inane, impossible "balance".
Not true. A neutral person who actually devotes himself to a universal balance between good or evil is neutral. Aeons are often like that.
And not every true neutral character is like that. Some actually are too good to be evil but too evil to be good.
Pathfinder's alignment system does have a middle ground.
The "neutral" person who commits an evil act to balance out a good one- is evil: not neutral.
Why is he not good, committing good acts to balance out evil ones? Is evil stronger?
Neutral is a lie, told to oneself, to promote evil. They may think they are neutral but they aren't.
You're in the wrong place. This discussion is about the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you tell me what game you are talking about, I might know where that is discussed. There are "other rpgs" forums on this site, too, by the way. :P
Remember: What you put on your character sheet is what you think you are. The DM doesn't necessarily have to go by that. He goes by your actions. Doing evil is evil. There is no "balance".
So if you say the GM tells you that you're neutral as you always manage to stay between the chairs, he lies to you? You might not say that to his face, as many GMs will not tolerate being called liars.
True Neutral is neither altruistic nor malicious, not devoted to order or to freedom.
Bingo. I almost always play True Neutral, because my characters goals are their own and have nothing to do with the promotion of external ideals. I do what suits me. Most humans IRL are Neutral because you wouldn't put yourself on the line for an ideal, at least not bodily.
True Neutral does exist in the game. This game. Animals abound with it.
But for intelligent people? Actively seeking "balance" means letting evil have its way sometimes. How is that not evil? Is it not evil just because the person chooses to say that they are doing it to balance the good?
If a person goes out and murders a village because across the country some do-gooder saved a village: can he get away with it by slapping "neutral" onto his character sheet and claiming that he was keeping the balance?
Of course not. And yes, Evil Is stronger. It is far easier to slide into evil than to walk the path of good. Evil is .. evil that way. It has always been far easier to do evil because Being evil is just about being selfish. It is about choosing what you want to do instead of doing the right thing. The good thing.
If the DM is telling you you are being neutral because you are "always between the chairs" then he's either coddling to you or deluding himself. There is no "inbetween". If you are capable of understanding good or evil then you are either one or the other. You may not think you are- but you are.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest or advocate telling someone they are a liar. Lying is about intentional deceit. Someone can be mistaken and still be honest. 'I am chaotic good" says the PC. The DM then says "well, you ate baby soup last week and this week you went to have a beer instead of stopping that rampaging Anti-Paladin who you knew was going to burn down the orphanage. You are sliding towards CN and getting closer to CE if you keep that up". Is the PC lying? is the DM lying? no. One or the other may be wrong- depending on how you interpret the alignment system- but Lying has a specific intent that I didn't address in my post. A PC can be mistaken about their alignment for any number of reasons- and the DM can too. But just thinking you are CG (or LG or TN or LN or whatever) does not make it so. The DM should advise you if you have slipped to another for certain- and I would argue that they should nudge you if you *are* slipping. (hey Bob, thats sort of.. evil'ish, isn't it, for your CG character?) so that you and he can discuss the alignment issues. Maybe you disagree that the action is evil'ish and can discuss it, etc..
My overall point is:
You can't ignore evil just because you stamp "neutral" onto your character sheet. Ignoring evil is empowering it, and that is in and of itself evil. He who steps aside and allows the slaughter of innocents is wet with their blood as assuredly as is the one who wields the axe.
Because of that, "true neutral" is an alignment that should not exist for intelligent beings. Because it is an alignment that is impossible to adhere to if you have the intelligence to form the difference between good and evil.
"Am I true neutral"
Dm: No.
-S
load of crap
Then you, Selgard, IRL, are wholly evil because you allow Kim Jong Il to oppress his people in North Korea. How could you? Why aren't you fighting him right now? How absurd is that?
Um, yeah. The game pretty clearly allows a neutral stance on the moral axis. You won't kill an innocent person to get what you want, but you won't put yourself in danger to save someone either.
What a person does to affect his alignment doesn't have to relate to cosmic good or evil, but it is a cosmic *constant*.
What this means is... a person doesn't have to become evil just because he's not willing to fight against an evil tyrant. But just because the local laws say it's okay to torture someone for yawning outside, and you feel very strongly against yawning inappropriately, doesn't make it anything but an Evil act.
.
Letting someone commit an evil act because you fear for your own safety is the very definition of neutral. Not acting might be cowardly, but its not inherently evil.
load of crapThen you, Selgard, IRL, are wholly evil because you allow Kim Jong Il to oppress his people in North Korea. How could you? Why aren't you fighting him right now? How absurd is that?
I bet you are indeed able to argue without belittling the other one's opinion as "crap".
True Neutral does exist in the game. This game. Animals abound with it.
But for intelligent people? Actively seeking "balance" means letting evil have its way sometimes. How is that not evil? Is it not evil just because the person chooses to say that they are doing it to balance the good?
Completely false.
First of all. Nethys is neutral. So is Gozreh. Both are gods. Not just intelligent, but possessing an intelligence that is way beyond what you could ever hope to achieve. And they're neutral.
And, again, this game does not equal True Neutral with "actively seeking balance". You might interpret it just that way, but the game does not.
If a person goes out and murders a village because across the country some do-gooder saved a village: can he get away with it by slapping "neutral" onto his character sheet and claiming that he was keeping the balance?Of course not.
And if I manage to take all point cards in MS hearts, everyone except me will go up in points.
This has about as much to do with the discussion as the stuff you said.
And yes, Evil Is stronger.
No. If it were stronger, it would have won.
In fact, since Good has angels (an all-good race of celestials without an opposite fiend-race), which tend to be stronger than the fiends (solars have a better CR than the strongest demons, daemons, or devils), you could say good is stronger.
It is possible to balance out evil acts with good ones and be neutral, or even good, while still having committed evil acts. It's all relative.
If the DM is telling you you are being neutral because you are "always between the chairs" then he's either coddling to you or deluding himself.
Or he has an opinion that is different from yours, but totally valid as far as the game we are talking about is concerned.
Stop trying to sell off your opinion as fact.
How is it evil to think that people should fend for themselves? If you just give them what they want, they will value it much less than they would if they'd earned it.
If you just kill the bandits that threaten the village, how can you be sure that there won't be new ones once you are gone?
"Make fire for a man, and he will be warm for one day. Set him on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!"
LOL, then you're not true neutral, you're true don't give a crap.
Also True Neutral on this Tread
Could care less, one way or the other :)
I care, i just think the argument is pointless.
True Neutral, can also mean, you just do not want to get involed, unless there is some persoal reason to do otherwise.
I do think most people are True Neutral
I think if you ask most people, they would say they were good.
Would most people, inter a house with plague, to take care of the people inside. No. Would they give excuseses why they could not. Yes. Would most people think those were good excusesses. Yes.
Will this argument change anyones minds. No.
Does this make the argument pointless. Yes.
Being concerned about the balance is A legitimate way to play true neutral but not the only way it has to be played. Most humans are neutral, its just that being good comes with a built in motivation for adventure that makes DM's lives easier without the individuals realistically deciding IF their concerns for themselves, their family, and their friends is enough motivation for them to risk their lives fighting zombies or being killed by fungus.
Being concerned about the balance is A legitimate way to play true neutral but not the only way it has to be played. Most humans are neutral, its just that being good comes with a built in motivation for adventure that makes DM's lives easier without the individuals realistically deciding IF their concerns for themselves, their family, and their friends is enough motivation for them to risk their lives fighting zombies or being killed by fungus.
+1
Greg
1st:
There is a difference between knowing there is evil out there in the world somewhere somehow, and seeing an evil in front of you that you can and should prevent but do not.
I know someone is getting murdered in NYC. I am utterly and completely unable to prevent it, since I am several thousand miles away. that does not make me "evil".
D&D alignment is objective not subjective though. If I see evil being done and I do nothing about it then have I not committed evil? Am I not allowing it to exist? There is cowardice and them there is ambivalence.
Standing aside while someone kills someone else is just as evil as wielding the blade. Such is the fun of D&D Morality. There is no "greater good" argument and all that crap: there is good, evil, and atonement.
2nd: The OP asked if a player could be True Neutral. I posit that you can't. That the game designers have decided to make some NPC's TN wasn't the question, nor does it prove anything. Gods can also grant spells to followers and a myriad of other things- at the DM's discretion. If his question was "can players grant divine spells to other players" The answer would be 'No' regardless of what the gods of the campaign world can do. At least -not without significant houserules that fall far, far, outside the realm of the core rules.
In order for a person to be TN they either have to be so sheltered that they never, ever come into contact with evil and as such can fill their head with philosophical stuff that makes them think they can truly "be balanced". or they can have such a low intelligence that they are literally as smart as the average dog or cat. (or is 3 the minimum Int by RaW? I forget.)
Or they have to fill themselves with the lie that when they intentionally let an evil pass by that they could have stopped, that they are doing so for the balance and so it isn't really evil.
Is the BBEG who slays villages so he can rule the world and put the world in the proper order evil? Does he get to rationalize any evil act done in order to say that he is doing it for a good cause and thus is good? Of course not. Good and Evil are absolutes in D&D. The person doing the action doesn't to get select whether the action is good or evil. Killing innocents is evil. Watching someone else murder them when you could have stopped him or saved them is likewise evil.
Or, to put it into other words.
The druid who kills villagers who are clearing a forest because they are clearing the forest is committing an evil act. The fact that he wants to maintain the "forest" or what not doesn't absolve him of the fact that such actions are evil. Thinking that the world is better with the forest than with the people making farm land also doesn't make the act turn good. He is murdering innocent people and that makes the acts evil.
"I don't care, I will do whatever I want however I want" is chaotic evil because doing whatever you want to further you own goals is evil. It doesn't matter how good that goal is- what matters is how you get to it. If you are doing evil to achieve a good goal you are still doing evil.
"Balance".
Evil is the intent and willingness to do evil to achieve whatever your goal is. The fact that you also sometimes do good acts is no balance. Good people sometimes can do evil without becoming evil just as evil can sometimes do good acts without becomig good but overall it is your attitude and your motivations behind what you do that determines how your alignment will shift and whether or not you can atone for it later.
"That group of adventurers saved that town last week so we need to kill this one to maintain the balance" is just pure evil.
Committing evil or allowing evil to flourish just because you have it in your head that there is some arbitrary balance that must be preserved is no different than killing because you are bored or you flipped a coin when you came into town and it landed on tails. Your actions are determined objectively not subjectively and the fact you concocted some 'reason' to do it doesn't make it less evil.
Unless there is infact some "not evil" reason for doing it.
In our own real world: Blowing someone's house up or burning it down is illegal. However, creating a fire break by destroying a house, building, or piece of land is perfectly valid and happens regularly. The *actions* are the same but Why you are doing them is different.
You have to have an outwardly justifyable reason or it isn't balance it is just evil. And "because I am true neutral" just doesn't get you there.
And lastly:
I'm not trying to sell anyone that this is fact. I preface'd my original post that this is all my opinion and I stand by that. You do not have to agree with me. He asked if TN can be played. My answer is no, and I've given my reasons. Feel free to disagree but also please don't put words into my mouth. Alignment is one of those things people *are* going to disagree about, even with both sides being passionate and honest about them. It is just too fluid and abstract a concept to expect everyone to agree on all the points.
-S
D&D alignment is objective not subjective though. If I see evil being done and I do nothing about it then have I not committed evil?
No
Am I not allowing it to exist? There is cowardice and them there is ambivalence.
Standing aside while someone kills someone else is just as evil as wielding the blade.
No. Its definitely not good but it isn't evil either. Its minding your own business, which is neutral. Neutral is a pretty broad range of attitudes and some of them are not very nice.
Such is the fun of D&D Morality. There is no "greater good" argument and all that crap: there is good, evil, and atonement.
So your argument is that there is no neutrality in d&d is that there is no neutrality in D&D.. despite the fact that it specifically says not only are there at least 3 forms of neutrality, but that its specifically listed as being the alignment of most humans.
|
Are the Ten Commandments evil? Is the Categorical Imperative evil? Both don't demand action against evil.
Let's keep Philosophy 101 out of this, the thread's muddled enough as it is.
As a game mechanic, TN exists, just like all the Alignments exist.
Are they representative of real life?
No.
Alignments are game mechanic constructs, abstractions of conceptualizations no more connected to real life than the fictional concept of having an 'AC' or 'HitPoints'.
And, unlike physics, which we understand pretty well, the entire notion of Morality, upon which Alignments are based, is an Open Question in real life--there is no quantitative, qualitative, authoritative or definitive answer.
So, all we're left with is a game mechanic with a weak definition of a term that it introduces without any real basis for comparison outside of the game terms itself--what is True Neutral in real life? Nothing. It does not exist in real life, it is solely a game concept.
Can you Play True Neutral?
Probably not. Like all alignments, they're so vague, ill-defined, ill-conceived and detached from anything in reality that they're really terms empty of true cognitive worth.
RIFTs at least gives you a "guide" as to what actions are more or less prescribed by a certain alignment. In that way, at least, you can compare action 'X' to alignment 'Y' and see if they correspond or not.
But, in D&D, you have abstract terms with weak definitions that just don't connect to anyone or anything outside of those terms. It's a closed loop.
We don't even have to discuss TN, what about LG?
Can a Lawful Good individual ever exist? Do they have to be both Absolutely *Lawful* and Absolutely *Good* at all times? What if they're not? What criteria do we use to judge them with anyway?
Ultimately, it's a *game*, so the decisions must come down to the GM--and how moral of an agent is he or she? How well versed in Ethics and Morality do they have to be in order to decide if you're actually playing a certain alignment or if you're straying?
There's no possible solution since we're arguing game mechanics versus vaguley defined real-life concepts where everyone has varying degrees of belief, education and/or support for their position.
The ultimate answer to "Can you play" any alignment is "I don't know, can you?" All else is just speculation, approximation, and guess work.
Alignments, unlike the other mechanics in the game don't, work precisely because they appeal to things external to the game. Magic works, AC works, Hit Points all work because they only ever reference the game itself and never go beyond its closed loop to appeal to or require a real-life interpretation or counterpart.
That's why Alignment ultimately fails--you can't take it beyond what's written on the sheet because it goes nowhere, it does not track real life in any meaningful way.
It's akin to issue of trying to link the Intelligence score on your sheet to how you play your character--it's impossible. You will never be able to replicate exactly what your character would or would not know in any given situation because it's merely a *representation* of your character's intelligence as regards to the game mechanics. You can never play a character "accurately" in regards to Intelligence because you simply cannot know what he/she *would* know.
It's impossible to play a character smarter than yourself since you're not that smart, it's impossible to play a character dumber than yourself since you're not that dumb--in both cases you can't know what they'd know.
So, as in alignment, it's all an abstraction. It does not track reality, does not tie to reality and it does not have an internal mechanic within the system to know if I'm "on" or "off" my alignment.
I can tell if I hit, miss, fumble or critical since the mechanics tell me I need number 'X' to perform action 'Y', but there's no number corresponding to how "well" or "accurately" I'm playing Alignment 'X', ultimately it's solely up to the GM to decide, and that's all based solely on his/her interpretation of what an alignment is, what appropriate actions would correspond, what potential outcomes are acceptable, whether it's acts/omissions/intentions/consequences that count and a whole host of other things from whether he's a hungry and cranky Utilitarian,a well-fed and happy Kantian, a supporter of the Sherman Principle, or a devout Deontologist--and even then, is morality external to his views, relative to his views, non-existent outside his views? And how does he relate all of this to how someone, sitting at a table, is acting when they're describing not their actions, but the actions of a fictional character who doesn't even exist.
Again, I ask you, "Is the current king of France bald?"
Like Alignment, it's a completely impossible question to answer as there is no answer.
;)
I've played a couple of characters who started out with Neutral/Neutral as their alignment and slowly changed based on their experiences during the campaign.
.
- If you spend all your time killing intelligent beings and taking their stuff, you might be evil.
- Spend all your time protecting the innocent, rescuing princesses, and banishing demons, you might be good.
- Spend your time toppling kings and dismantling thieves' guilds, you might be chaotic.
- Spend your time building kingdoms, routing bandits, and bringing order to the wilderness, you might be lawful.
Are the Ten Commandments evil?Do you really want me to answer that?
Amen, brotha!
|
Amen, brotha!Are the Ten Commandments evil?Do you really want me to answer that?
Thanks for reminding me why I dislike atheist extremists nearly as much as religious ones.
Also, you might think those commandments to be wrong, but wrong is something very different from evil.
So, which one of the commandments make you evil when you live according to them?
Amen, brotha!Are the Ten Commandments evil?Do you really want me to answer that?
Thanks for reminding me why I dislike atheist extremists nearly as much as religious ones.
Also, you might think those commandments to be wrong, but wrong is something very different from evil.
So, which one of the commandments make you evil when you live according to them?
None. But they don't make you "good" either. The commandments speak more to who is doing the commanding. Thou shalt not covet is mindcrime, which is a load of bunk. The first 3 commandments are utter rubbish, and yeah I'd say the attempt to impose a religion on someone else would be evil. So there's that.
"Atheist extremists" what? It's just looking at the founding principles of religion in a rational manner. If logic and reason are extreme and radical to you, and I hope they are not, then you are precisely who the world should be afraid of.
|
|
None. But they don't make you "good" either. The commandments speak more to who is doing the commanding. Thou shalt not covet is mindcrime, which is a load of bunk. The first 3 commandments are utter rubbish, and yeah I'd say the attempt to impose a religion on someone else would be evil. So there's that.
Considering I used them as an example for a neutral code, I have no objections to them not making their adherent good.
"Atheist extremists" what? It's just looking at the founding principles of religion in a rational manner. If logic and reason are extreme and radical to you, and I hope they are not, then you are precisely who the world should be afraid of.
The funding principle of religion is 'there are things that we don't understand, let's give them a meaning'.
Zweifle nicht an dem der dir sagt er hat Angst aber hab Angst vor dem der dir sagt er kennt keinen Zweifel.
I know enough about logic and reason to avoid making them my only guidance. The same goes for religious laws, though, and I'm probably closer to reason than to faith. But there's little difference in killing someone in the name of a god or killing someone in the name of reason.
But there's little difference in killing someone in the name of a god or killing someone in the name of reason.
Killing in the name of reason? How does that work? That sounds like someone making reason his religion.
Killing for a reason, now that is something different. Depending on the reason, of course. But "Doesn't have the same religion as me" is no good reason. It's not even close to sufficient.
Thou shalt not covet is mindcrime, which is a load of bunk.
"In my mind I am free".
However, it isn't quite as easy as that. While some thoughts cannot be controlled (someone cuts you off and you briefly entertain the notion of just pushing him off the road and shoving his car's still hot tailpipe up his tail pipe), there is sense in saying that if you actively harbour some thoughts, it will influence your personality.
And since religion is (or should be) about morals, not laws, a religion saying that it's not right to have certain thoughts can be a valid notion.
In the case of those commandments, "Thou shalt not covet covet thy neighbour's wife/goods", it depends on how you covet.
There's nothing wrong with idly thinking "That guy's wife is hot" or fantasising about her, or even thinking "Should they ever be divorced, I'll try my best to win her for me", when you start thinking "She's hot, I must find out how serious she takes her marital vows", it starts to become something that should raise some moral flags.
Same with goods. Nothing wrong with thinking that he's got nice things you'd like to have, too, as long as you channel that desire "correctly". I.e. as a motivation to get a decent job to be able to afford this stuff, or something similar to that. But if it will lead to you starting to hate the guy just because he can afford more than you (different thing when he's being arrogant about it), or you stealing or damaging his stuff, or even you buying more than you can afford out of sheer envy, that coveting has negative consequences.
But you are right in saying that such thoughts should not be denied categorically.
I was always sad that after the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness I was always sad nobody created the Book of Shrugged Indifference.
And it should have contained a TN paladin of apathy build. His one special power: if you ask him for help, he'll give you a magic coin that summons a paladin who cares.
More on-topic: I play a nominally TN eldritch knight but confess that his actions seem to lean more towards good. I've always justified his alignment with the reasoning that the character's primary goal is to get things stable enough in his world that he can resume living his normal life as a scholar of the arcane and lover of epicurean delights. Bold acts of bravery and overt heroics - those things are all well and good, but they're for other members of the party with a bigger dog in the moral and ethical fight to deal with.
The only times he acted boldly without caution were attacking an old enemy against whom he held a longstanding grudge, and seizing control of an evil artifact (one imprisoning a powerful daemon that temporarily took control of his body) in an effort to destroy it because no other options presented themselves.
Few moral quandaries presented themselves in the playing of this character; the one time we had in-fighting among the party, it was because the LG aasimar cleric didn't approve of us summarily executing a captured evil mage who was the head of an assassin's guild. The rest of us were worldly enough to know that with her connections and wealth, she would easily elude trial and escape to cause more harm. The CG people in the party disagreed with the cleric, of course, believing we should kill her without further hesitation. In the end, it took my TN character suggesting that we submit her to another lawful authority - a self-proclaimed CG orc chieftain and former party member who had crossed paths with the mage in question before. The aasimar hesitantly agreed that the orc chieftain's authority was sufficiently lawful, in lieu of the presence of the officials of the city in which her organization operated.
Imagine our delight when the orc chieftain walked in, took one look at the mage, and beheaded her with a stroke of his greatsword, before turning to us and saying, "Haven't we been over this? WE KILL EVIL WIZARDS."
|
|
But there's little difference in killing someone in the name of a god or killing someone in the name of reason.Killing in the name of reason? How does that work? That sounds like someone making reason his religion.
Killing for a reason, now that is something different. Depending on the reason, of course. But "Doesn't have the same religion as me" is no good reason. It's not even close to sufficient.
How many people have been killed for that sole reason? It's a common justification, but most murders are done for material reasons.
It's the same with killing people for having 'Counter-revolutionary ideas'. Sadly, the adherents of reason aren't that much better than the 'superstitious cowardly lot' they oppose.
But there's little difference in killing someone in the name of a god or killing someone in the name of reason.Killing in the name of reason? How does that work? That sounds like someone making reason his religion.
Killing for a reason, now that is something different. Depending on the reason, of course. But "Doesn't have the same religion as me" is no good reason. It's not even close to sufficient.
How many people have been killed for that sole reason? It's a common justification, but most murders are done for material reasons.
It's the same with killing people for having 'Counter-revolutionary ideas'. Sadly, the adherents of reason aren't that much better than the 'superstitious cowardly lot' they oppose.
I'm not saying that nobody would ever kill someone else for these reasons. I'm saying that they're not enough to morally justify killing someone. Not even close.
|
|
I'm not saying that nobody would ever kill someone else for these reasons. I'm saying that they're not enough to morally justify killing someone. Not even close.
How many people have been killed for that sole reason? It's a common justification, but most murders are done for material reasons.
It's the same with killing people for having 'Counter-revolutionary ideas'. Sadly, the adherents of reason aren't that much better than the 'superstitious cowardly lot' they oppose.
I never said those murders were morally justified. Who needs morals when he has an ideology to serve?
I don't think that killing another person is ever morally justified. It's a lesser of two evils at best.
Another alignment thread? I would sigh, but to do so as many times as necessary would rob me of all the air in my lungs.
Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
For lack of words, True Neutral is a load of bull, at least for the case of a PC. The very definition of Neutrality seems to imply an overall lack of motivation to act on any inhibitions related to morality or other personal beliefs. PCs generally act on motivation to reach some ultimate goal; without an alignment shift involved, I don't see how a Neutral character could possibly do this while still suspending disbelief.
Another alignment thread? I would sigh, but to do so as many times as necessary would rob me of all the air in my lungs.
Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.For lack of words, True Neutral is a load of bull, at least for the case of a PC. The very definition of Neutrality seems to imply an overall lack of motivation to act on any inhibitions related to morality or other personal beliefs. PCs generally act on motivation to reach some ultimate goal; without an alignment shift involved, I don't see how a Neutral character could possibly do this while still suspending disbelief.
There are more reasons than "doing good" and "doing evil".
There are more reasons than "doing good" and "doing evil".Another alignment thread? I would sigh, but to do so as many times as necessary would rob me of all the air in my lungs.
Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.For lack of words, True Neutral is a load of bull, at least for the case of a PC. The very definition of Neutrality seems to imply an overall lack of motivation to act on any inhibitions related to morality or other personal beliefs. PCs generally act on motivation to reach some ultimate goal; without an alignment shift involved, I don't see how a Neutral character could possibly do this while still suspending disbelief.
Certainly, but amongst aligned PCs who are motivated to do just that, it's a little hard for the Neutral PC to join the ride. The promise of a reward is not always a reasonable exception.
I don't think that murdering another person is ever morally justified.
FTFY. It can be morally justified to kill another human being, but not to murder one. IMHO.