being 100% neutral at any single moment (except character creation) has probability 0, it's like picking a random real number between -1 and 1 and hitting exactly 0.
However a neutral character can once give a penny to a street urching, and kick the next one away from him, and he is still pretty much in the balance. He won't change to good after gifting the money, it's like hitting something between -.3 and .3, which is quite possible.
being 100% neutral at any single moment (except character creation) has probability 0, it's like picking a random real number between -1 and 1 and hitting exactly 0.
However a neutral character can once give a penny to a street urching, and kick the next one away from him, and he is still pretty much in the balance. He won't change to good after gifting the money, it's like hitting something between -.3 and .3, which is quite possible.
If we are to define being neutral as that zero point, then nobody can be truely neutral. Also, nobody could be Good or Evil as the likelyhood of hitting 1 or -1 is also a probability 0.
I think for the purpose of this discussion, there are boundries defined. In the 1 to -1 example it would be close to
(1 to .33) = Good
(.33 to -.33) = Neutral
(-.33 to -1) = Evil
Every decision you can make falls along this line in some form or another. No decision requires an absolute 1 or -1 response. There is always a third option.
This is why I don't agree with Selgard's interpretation that to do nothing in his scenario would be considered evil. It's just not that black and white.
|
In what universe does that make any sense? It is one thing to be neutral to a conflict, i.e., it does not concern you, or you are completely apathetic. But what kind of person, outside of some creature that is wholly alien, would choose to intervene to knowingly help those that are evil for the sake of helping evil flourish to a degree of homeostasis with good? And on what basis would that person say that "too much good" is a "bad" thing?Say I am a cleric of Urgathoa. I don't want Good to "win" since all the undead are destroyed. From my point of view, Evil could win in 2 ways:
1. All life destroyed. This is bad since many undead, like vampires, need living creatures to sustain their un-life.
2. All life is enslaved on massive blood/lifeforce farms. This is bad because it leads to stasis. For progress to exists, new ideas are needed and my cleric may feel that for this he needs mortals who live free lives and then choose to become undead.
---------------
Another example. Say I am a (CN) druid. I prioritize the welfare of nature. However, I want humanoids to continue to exist since they are part of nature.
If a country becomes too Lawful Good, they quickly exterminate all the monsters and start over-consuming. If a society becomes too Lawful Evil, they exterminate all the adventurers, subjugate all the wild monsters and start strip-mining. Only by keeping the humanoids balanced between Good and Evil can I ensure that there are enough predators to prey on both sides. Thus I achieve my desired world.
---------------
Last example. My character could believe that the material plane must remain balanced for cosmological reasons. Its possible that if the plane becomes too Good or too Evil than it will merge with the appropriate outer plane and thus bring about the end of the world, in the sense that new souls will stop appearing on the material plane.
Sorry that I did not address this earlier, Knight Magenta; I'll address your points now. You see, here the actions of these neutral characters makes sense because it is in their self-interest to keep these objectively good and evil forces in a state of balance. Otherwise, the victory of one side over the other may spell doom for the neutral character in question, or at the very least something that they value and hold dear.
However, I was not talking about these scenarios. I was talking about the rather strange druid who wants to keep the forces of good and evil in balance for the sake of keeping these forces in balance. I guess your last example falls into this category. Perhaps you run games in which the existence of the universe hinges on there being a moral/ethical homeostasis. But unless such a threat is actually demonstrable, it would seem to me that a character jumping from one side to another in order to make sure there is just as much evil as there is good is both insane and destructive. In fact, I would think it more appropriate that, for example, a Chaotic Neutral character does this not for any ideological reason, but simply because it amuses him to constantly fight alongside the underdog in any conflict, however righteous or malicious their cause. At least that's a reason I can wrap my head around, even if I didn't agree with it.
Interesting topic to me, as I'm currently playing a Neutral character. So far, my approach has been simple: make the logical choice over the emotional one. Most "Good" or "Evil" acts tend to either be done as a reaction to, or as an attempt to create, an emotional feeling.
I'm playing a cleric of Gozreh, who is chaotic neutral, and I tend to play her in a similar way: picking the most rational choice over emotion (unless that emotion is anger, in which case, somebody's about to get a lightning bolt to the face).
My cleric's general attitude is also largely neutral. She doesn't kick puppies or anything, but she's not very nice, either. She will use her abilities to the betterment of the whole group (including healing them if they're injured), but she also tends to make demands on others, rather than asking nicely. If she likes you, she'll be nicer; if she doesn't, she'll be abrasive. As far as the Good-Evil spectrum goes, I think she's quite firmly in the Neutral camp.
Another side to neutrality is someone who commits evil actions on a regular basis, though for a (real or perceived) greater good. Torture? That's bad, and would cut of a paladin regardless of the motive. Torturing someone who just set a world-ending plot in motion, and you need to find out how to stop it? While the end goal is good, I'd judge the overall alignment as more neutral. (The good response would be to find another way to save the world.)
In one game, my party came across some captured villagers in a dungeon we were fighting our way through. We freed them and brought them to our camp, at which point we realized that some of them had ghoul fever, which could manifest at any time. My (neutral) character's solution was to kill the infected ones. That's not a very nice thing to do, but it would save both the party and the rest of the villagers from possible infection, as well as allow the infected to die with some dignity, before becoming ghouls themselves. The paladin, quite rightfully, objected to this plan, preferring to try and cure the ghoul fever instead, in spite of the risks.
As far as I'm concerned, there are many ways to achieve neutrality, and not just by balancing good and evil acts. In many circumstances, there is a neutral option a character can take. The world is rarely black-and-white.
|
In the case of the hobgoblins the Druid thinks....
What would a BEAR do?
A bear would mess those creatures up for dare setting foot in HIS forest.
He them goes about messing the hobgobbies up.
Then he would crap in the woods, because that is what bears doo.
Of course this isn't the only neutral there is.
There is also the sort who doesn't care about anything at all, including their own personal hyegene.
And then there are just people who want to be left alone and go about their daily lives.
Every character I am currently playing is neutral.
My druid is lawful neutral, and the "lawful" is interpreted by her as "the law of nature." She very much follows the "survival of the fittest" and she ignores most "civilized" notions of "good" or "evil."
However, she is keenly interested in keeping her area of interest free from unnatural influence, and as such she frequently finds herself fighting against forces that want to corrupt, exploit or simply destroy nature. Her single "failing" in terms of being truly neutral is that she has a soft spot in her heart for the young, whether they are young humanoids, young kobolds or young animals. She is currently engaged in a campaign against some sort of unnatural dragon which is somehow changing other creatures into dragon hybrids who become his minions.
My 4e half-orc ranger is simply "unaligned." His only unselfish concern is to protect his little sister, who happens to be a champion gladiator. Otherwise he is mostly interested in good food, treasure, the best cigars and his "toys" which are mostly magical weapons of one sort or another. He is currently the "chief enforcer" of a warlord who intends to become the next emperor. His only real non-neutral thing is that having been raised as a slave, he opposes slavery violently.
My chaotic neutral cajun voodoo witch is essentially a drug, alcohol and sex addict and his most pressing concerns revolve around how to feed his various addictions. He is currently in a group where half of the members are good, and as such he finds himself getting a little tired of all the namby-pamby do-gooder stuff they do. But he's biding his time (they don't know his alignment). He has plans to depose the local BBEG and take over his territory. He does a lot of secret behind-the-scenes scheming and manipulating that his group members are unaware of. He's not bad, he would be a decent kingpin, but that's mostly because he doesn't really care enough about other people's lives to actively try to screw them up.
Are any of these "truly 100% neutral?"
No, but then again, I've yet to see a "truly 100% lawful good" character either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is "lukewarm" a possible temperature in a world where "hot" and "cold" exist?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One thing I'm getting from the various comments in the thread is that to define neutrality, people need to define good and evil in a campaign, then go from there. I've defined how I see good (altruistic) and evil (selfish)* Law (concerned with the letter of the law) and Chaos (concerned with the spirit of the law) and how neutral interacts with that.
So how do others define good and evil on a campaign scale.
*
If a level 20 druid is watching the 3 orcs getting ready to have human child soup is it evil for him to shrug and fly away? Dang human shouldn't have been in the forest anyway?
I'm not really sure how this would be anything but an evil act.
How about he yells something about disturbing his sacred forrest and kills all four of them?
And on the idea of it being evil to just shrug and walk away: living things get eaten, that's the way of nature.
For a druid it hasn't got to be a difference if the human is being eaten by wolfes or by orcs.
They are both carnivores and they have to eat to survive.
If there were 3 undead, about to feast on some hapless human, it would be very different. Because undead are the antithesis of the nature the druid wants to preserve.
This is a VERY old argument. Every person alive would naturally want ALL other humans to agree with them, but lo and behold! Not everyone thinks the same way. So, whatever you want people to think and do, there will be those who agree with you, those who disagree, and those who don't care enough to choose to agree or disagree.
If what you want is for people to be happy, you'll find that the same thing happens. Some will actively work against you, many will not listen to your ideas.
In that situation, there is a SHARP temptation to declare all those who disagree with you as being evil. This may be true, of course. What is more interesting is that you will also see this temptation regarding those who don't care enough. It's typically put as "Those who are not with me are against me"... and it's just not true. There are many reasons why someone may not care. They could be booked up with other things that are more important to their view, they could see your ideas as harmful and evil, they could see what you're doing as risky, they could not trust you, and so on. Someone who pushes for "those who are not with me are against me" is typically a fanatic, whether he likes it or not.
If a level 20 druid is watching the 3 orcs getting ready to have human child soup is it evil for him to shrug and fly away? Dang human shouldn't have been in the forest anyway?
I'm not really sure how this would be anything but an evil act.
How about he yells something about disturbing his sacred forrest and kills all four of them?
And on the idea of it being evil to just shrug and walk away: living things get eaten, that's the way of nature.
For a druid it hasn't got to be a difference if the human is being eaten by wolfes or by orcs.
They are both carnivores and they have to eat to survive.If there were 3 undead, about to feast on some hapless human, it would be very different. Because undead are the antithesis of the nature the druid wants to preserve.
I know it is hard to accept in some ways, but, yes, a level 20 druid watching a group of orcs having human child soup is absolutely a plausible neutral response.
First of all, it is entirely plausible that a level 20 druid could view all humanoids as a major threat to the natural order of things. Humanoids (including both orcs and humans) tend to be rather harsh on their surrounding environment.
If a level 20 druid is watching the 3 orcs getting ready to have human child soup is it evil for him to shrug and fly away? Dang human shouldn't have been in the forest anyway?
I'm not really sure how this would be anything but an evil act.
How about he yells something about disturbing his sacred forrest and kills all four of them?
And on the idea of it being evil to just shrug and walk away: living things get eaten, that's the way of nature.
For a druid it hasn't got to be a difference if the human is being eaten by wolfes or by orcs.
They are both carnivores and they have to eat to survive.If there were 3 undead, about to feast on some hapless human, it would be very different. Because undead are the antithesis of the nature the druid wants to preserve.
I know it is hard to accept in some ways, but, yes, a level 20 druid watching a group of orcs having human child soup is absolutely a plausible neutral response.
First of all, it is entirely plausible that a level 20 druid could view all humanoids as a major threat to the natural order of things. Humanoids (including both orcs and humans) tend to be rather harsh on their surrounding environment.
But is his subjective perception enough to alter the actual alignment ramifications of the act?
Afterall- many a dictator would say they are doing the right thing but that doesn't make it so.
Heck I can go rob from a bank claiming I need the money more than they do but it doesn't make it a Good act.
Alignment is objective in, not subjective. He can view the humanoids however he wants to (as threats to the forest, as natural creatures to be left alone, whatever). That impacts his oath or pact with whatever is giving him his powers but thats different than the alignment consequences.
Just like a paladin is lawful good "plus". He has to be lawful good And uphold the tenants of his faith and the Paladin Code.
Watching an orc preparing to butcher a sentient child for supper and just sitting and watching is leaning towards evil- whether they know it or not. "Oh, that human would just grow up to side with the villagers" is just that person's self rationalization for said evil. it doesn't make it neutral or good to do so, however. that doesn't mean its an intant alignment shift- that would depend on the circumstances. (a willingness to aid and the ability to do so aren't necessarily hand in hand)
Getting caught up in the specifics of what a class can or can't do due to their specific ethical code isn't the same as discussing what those oaths would do to their alignments. This is why there are threads about paladin that discuss "damned if I do, damned if I don't" because in theory at least there are some decisions that defrock them regardless of which action they do. Actions that probably don't kick him off of being LG.
If a druid saw an animal attacking someone I could totally see a good druid stopping the attack- but not killing the animal. I could see a neutral druid either stopping it or not, as was their choice.
and I could see an evil one laughing and watchign while eating popcorn.
LE hobgoblins, however, aren't animals. They are sentient creatures that are primarily Evil in the context of the game world.
Change the example to a level 20 fighter watching 50 skeletons walking down the road, or 20 zombies (or mix and match) and is the response the same?
Is it good, neutral, or evil to just sit and watch them go by knowing that they'll likely end up at the door step of an innocent village?
-S
But is his subjective perception enough to alter the actual alignment ramifications of the act?
This is actually two different issues conflated together. There might well be "alignment ramifications" of acts that follow a specific alignment strictly. There is an entirely separate thread going on about paladins and lying. Is it an evil act to truthfully answer a question about where the innocent family is hiding? This is a specific example of a much larger issue with alignment systems and druids (who must be neutral) have long been acknowledged to have alignment constraints that are similar to what paladins experience, although not nearly as severe. Nothing about the discussion of "can a druid truly be neutral" changes that. That is an artifact of the alignment mechanic itself.
Afterall- many a dictator would say they are doing the right thing but that doesn't make it so.
Heck I can go rob from a bank claiming I need the money more than they do but it doesn't make it a Good act.
See above. Although in this case I think you've picked a poor analogy. The paladin lying to save the innocent family would be a better one.
Alignment is objective in, not subjective. He can view the humanoids however he wants to (as threats to the forest, as natural creatures to be left alone, whatever). That impacts his oath or pact with whatever is giving him his powers but thats different than the alignment consequences.
Just like a paladin is lawful good "plus". He has to be lawful good And uphold the tenants of his faith and the Paladin Code.Watching an orc preparing to butcher a sentient child for supper and just sitting and watching is leaning towards evil- whether they know it or not. "Oh, that human would just grow up to side with the villagers" is just that person's self rationalization for said evil. it doesn't make it neutral or good to do so, however. that doesn't mean its an intant alignment shift- that would depend on the circumstances. (a willingness to aid and the ability to do so aren't necessarily hand in hand)
I would say that this is an extremely human-centric perspective and I frankly see absolutely no reason a, for example, kobold druid would agree with you. I see no reason other than pure racial solidarity that a human would agree with you. You could extend this logic to say that any sentient being who is not actively campaigning to stop all child abuse is condoning evil.
Neutral is a harsh alignment. I've had this conversation with many people over the years. To play a truly neutral character will necessitate making lots of choices that will leave your character open for charges of being evil or good. That's because the perspective of the good or evil person is DIFFERENT than the neutral person. Allowing a human child to be eaten by orcs is not in and of itself any more evil than allowing an orc child to be slaughtered by humans.
Getting caught up in the specifics of what a class can or can't do due to their specific ethical code isn't the same as discussing what those oaths would do to their alignments. This is why there are threads about paladin that discuss "damned if I do, damned if I don't" because in theory at least there are some decisions that defrock them regardless of which action they do. Actions that probably don't kick him off of being LG.
The main difference between druids and their neutral alignment and paladins and their lawful good alignment is that druids have far more leeway in choosing their actions since they are not constrained by an oath to do only neutral things. They can do whatever they want so long as they revere nature.
If a druid saw an animal attacking someone I could totally see a good druid stopping the attack- but not killing the animal. I could see a neutral druid either stopping it or not, as was their choice.
and I could see an evil one laughing and watchign while eating popcorn.LE hobgoblins, however, aren't animals. They are sentient creatures that are primarily Evil in the context of the game world.
Change the example to a level 20 fighter watching 50 skeletons walking down the road, or 20 zombies (or mix and match) and is the response the same?
Is it good, neutral, or evil to just sit and watch them go by knowing that they'll likely end up at the door step of an innocent village?
A neutral fighter could watch the skeletons or zombies and go on his merry way.
One thing I would like to clarify is that it is more or less impossible to choose a perfectly neutral path in some situations. Especially contrived ones that are intended to create a binary "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. A neutral character can quite comfortably choose an evil path sometimes and a good path other times.
So even if ignoring the human child soup IS evil, that doesn't necessarily tilt the scales of that individual druid to "evil". Perhaps he saved a young woman from rape earlier in the day. That's one of the things I like about playing neutral characters. I'm not constrained to "always" make a particular choice. I can be good, bad or indifferent so long as I don't make a habit of good or bad...
Sorry that I did not address this earlier, Knight Magenta; I'll address your points now. You see, here the actions of these neutral characters makes sense because it is in their self-interest to keep these objectively good and evil forces in a state of balance. Otherwise, the victory of one side over the other may spell doom for the neutral character in question, or at the very least something that they value and hold dear.
I actually think that this is the main reason that anyone acts. A good person opposes evil because the triumph of evil will destroy things the good person values. Likewise for evil characters. If a neutral person benefits from the balance of power, then he would act to preserve that balance.
Your example of the underdog-lover brought to mind another example. The career mercenary benefits from continued conflict. He doesn't want Good to win because then no one hires him. He does not want evil to win since he is not that malevolent.
The same can be said about various merchants that sell military goods. I think this could actually cover a good number of otherwise sane people.
stuff too long for the boards to quote it all, so I removed it.
I don't buy into the idea that because the druid sees something as neutral that it is therefore neutral. If that is the case then alignment is completely subjective for everyone and the system (as little a one as there is) falls apart, alignment wise.
Either the action is good, evil, or neutral. The disposition, opinion, or world view point of the actor is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
If world view point /is/ important then suddenly all the goblin kind in the world- not to mention demons devils and daemons- suddenly became GOOD because they are doing what they want to do- and therefore thats good. All they have to do is say "I deem this to be good" and it is.
Clearly- this isn't the case. A neutral person does not get to say "this is neutral because I'm following neutrality" anymore than anyone else does.
Or to put it another way;
An action that is Good is good whether you are good, neutral, or evil.
An action that is evil is evil whether you are good, neutral, or evil.
Now I Do agree that no one action will likely change your alignment.
Letting the undead pass by won't suddenly force an alignment shift but it is indicative of a general attitude of leniency towards evil. In an of itself shifting? no- but its at least the start of a trend.
I also do not buy into the notion that alignment is some sort of slider scale where you can kick a baby today and fully fund an orphanage tomorrow and say "well that evened out" or "hey I did more good than bad".
Any given action or inaction may have some alignment consequence (not necessarily meaning an instant shift, but that you are leaning towards a change if you keep it up)
Take for general example:
A lawful evil cultist who regularly kidnaps the homeless and sacrifices them to their evil deity/demon/whatever.
Now this is evil, sure.
Does he have a good alignment though for contributing mightly to the good churches in the area? to starting orphanages and soup kitchens and all that so he can keep a good name in the community?
No- he doesn't. He's still an evil person doing evil things. Doing some good things doesn't change that. Not unless he /stops doing evil/ and commits himself to turning his life around.
(of course, convincing everyone else that he's turned his life around and that it isn't a ruse may take more time)
Now a person may go around /thinking/ they are good- but that doesn't make it so. A person with an evil side-life might very well go parading himself around in the day doing all sorts of good deeds while purging the city of its "undesireables" by night with abit of vigilante justice but thinking he's good and thinking he's doing good doesn't mean he is good. The character in question might even have CG listed on his sheet- but the DM knows better.
Which goes back to the druid.
The druid can say or think that because he's all neutral and following nature that he's neutral and hasn't taken a side.. and he can think that all the way into the Abyss if he's not careful. Thinking you aren't being evil doesn't mean you aren't being evil.
And lastly-
of course a kobold or goblin wouldn't think a thing about killing and eating a human baby.. but they are evil already- or at least the majority are. And if they have brought themselves up from NE to be NN then they ought to know enough that murdering sentients, even for food, is an evil act.
If he's NE then he doesn't care. but NN should care.
And really lastly- again thanks to everyone for keeping the discussion civil and for keeping it going :)
-S
Given the tendency of ANY agrarian society towards overpopulation (due to food surpluses), by the long view, letting nomadic/raider-type humanoids eat the agricultural humanoids (of whatever age) could be argued as at LEAST neutral, if not good, since it is averting (or at least delaying) inevitable famine when overfarming and increasing population exceed the capacity of the agrarian society's capacity to continue feeding its members... in addition to decreasing the agrarian impact on the natural ecology, which is doubleplusgood (in a non-alignment use of "good") for the hypothetical druid.
[/tongue in cheek]
On a more serious note, failing to intervene in the endless cycle of wars and aggression committed by sentients cannot be unambiguously defined as evil. Certainly, acting to save the life of hypothetical infant would be a good act. But letting it get eaten? Not so easily-pigeonholed.
Are it's parents alive? Questionable, with orcs putting the water on to boil. So, say the druid saves it, but now it's an orphan. Is s/he going to raise it? If not, what quality of foster-parentage is available? Is said rescued, hypothetical baby now condemned to a life of hard labor, semi-starvation, abuse, and neglect? Is interfering with its death a fate worse than death?
And, aside from undead horrors, everybody dies sometime. The price of living is dying. Why is letting someone die evil, given this fact? Yeah, short life. Better luck next time. Evil is more than the absence of good. Omission=\=action in every case...
Just food for thought. But given both various afterlives and reincarnation, letting critters eat each other doesn't, in my mind,make the grade for evil.
Now I think I agree with Selgard. I think that every action can be classified as Good or Evil (and Lawful or Chaotic). However, that is not to say that your alignment is just the sum of your actions.
In my mind, a neutral druid that opposes the church of Iomedae because Good has become too strong in the land should still remain neutral; Even if he spends his entire life opposing that church.
In order to have alignment work this way, intent has to play a part in how an action affects your alignment. If it worked any other way, then we would have the absurd consequence of a druid needing to go out and kick lots of puppies (or steal lots of candy, puppies are servants of nature after all...) after he saves the little village to maintain good standing with nature.
.. his own "wall of text" so I didn't quote it either
You say that a druid can do as they like, but they will go to the abyss anyway if they do evil.
Sure. If they do evil. Just as the druid could be wrong in judging the act as evil or good, so can you.
Let's say the druid in question is a half-elf, half-dryad. Her dryad siblings and her oak grove were cut down by humans who were using the wood to sacrifice innocent children to an evil demon lord.
Now this druid sees a human baby being prepared for dinner by a group of orcs.
Her entire experience with humans so far is that they have destroyed her forest, killed her siblings, sacrificed innocents and attempted to summon a demon to take over the world.
So.... you say it's still an evil act for her to shrug her shoulders and walk away?
.. his own "wall of text" so I didn't quote it eitherYou say that a druid can do as they like, but they will go to the abyss anyway if they do evil.
Sure. If they do evil. Just as the druid could be wrong in judging the act as evil or good, so can you.
Let's say the druid in question is a half-elf, half-dryad. Her dryad siblings and her oak grove were cut down by humans who were using the wood to sacrifice innocent children to an evil demon lord.
Now this druid sees a human baby being prepared for dinner by a group of orcs.
Her entire experience with humans so far is that they have destroyed her forest, killed her siblings, sacrificed innocents and attempted to summon a demon to take over the world.
So.... you say it's still an evil act for her to shrug her shoulders and walk away?
haha sorry I didn't mean my snip quote to come off as snide towards you. Actually its m y ongoing fight with the boards- I click reply to get the end of someone's post just to have it snip it off .. grr. And then half the time I have to open a new browser to find the thread again just to find their post so I can try to copy/paste it in- which I'm not terribly good at.
The issue really expands further than the Druid itself.
No action is good for a druid and evil for someone or vice versa. Evil Is. Its objective not subjective, in D&D.
Sure if we were going to use our 'real world" morality then I'd totally go with your argument. I really would. I can totally go for a half-dryad thingie thinking "good for that orc, one less stinking tree chopping pink skin in the forest".
Unfortunately though D&D doesn't take the person's history into consideration. Any given act is either good or evil or neutral and that is applied to /whoever/ is doing it. Whether that person is a LG paladin, a CE Anti-paladin or A NN druid.
(an nn druid? hrm.)
Sentient Individual X sees Sentient Individual Y trying to slay innocent baby Individual Z in order to consume it.
Is it good? evil? neutral?
regardless of the parties involved- the answer is what the answer is.
Now sure the example can be changed. But that also tends to change the answer.
I see it as evil to not stop the murder.
Now you say "Well Y was really defending his home and Z isn't really innocent becauze of whatever and so on".. Well- that changes the equation.
But in D&D the facts set the alignment not the alignment or perception of any individual- excepting perhaps those of the parties themselves.
(While it may be evil for an orc to kill a child and eat it, its not evil for a wolf to slay a child and eat it, for example. Wolves lack good/evil in D&D due to their int scores.)
Thats what objective is though. The standard for whether any given action is good or evil is independent of the person looking at it.
If its evil- then its evil for the arch angel of goody two shoes to do just like its evil for the dastardly big bad evil of demons to do, just like its evil for the most balancy naturey careful guy of the forest to do.
The issue just gets obfuscated by the fact that Druids /also/ have their own beliefs that get in the way- as to Paladin (and often, clerics). But any given class' ability to do or not do something without losing their powers doesn't necessarily indicate that same action being good or evil or neutral.
-S
Now I think I agree with Selgard. I think that every action can be classified as Good or Evil (and Lawful or Chaotic). However, that is not to say that your alignment is just the sum of your actions.
In my mind, a neutral druid that opposes the church of Iomedae because Good has become too strong in the land should still remain neutral; Even if he spends his entire life opposing that church.
In order to have alignment work this way, intent has to play a part in how an action affects your alignment. If it worked any other way, then we would have the absurd consequence of a druid needing to go out and kick lots of puppies (or steal lots of candy, puppies are servants of nature after all...) after he saves the little village to maintain good standing with nature.
I think it depends on how they went about opposing the church. Even good deities can and do sometimes oppose each other. It can be done without turning towards evil.
-S
Now I think I agree with Selgard. I think that every action can be classified as Good or Evil (and Lawful or Chaotic). However, that is not to say that your alignment is just the sum of your actions.
In my mind, a neutral druid that opposes the church of Iomedae because Good has become too strong in the land should still remain neutral; Even if he spends his entire life opposing that church.
In order to have alignment work this way, intent has to play a part in how an action affects your alignment. If it worked any other way, then we would have the absurd consequence of a druid needing to go out and kick lots of puppies (or steal lots of candy, puppies are servants of nature after all...) after he saves the little village to maintain good standing with nature.
Replied again because I somehow missed the last part of your post.
I think intent definately plays some part.
A fairly common example:
The evil guy infiltrating the good guys to accomplish some goal. (sabotage, theft, information gathering). He can do whatever good deeds he wants to while with them but its not going to dent his alignment because he's not doing good to do good. He's doing good to further his cover. When the job is over he's outta there.
The interesting part is that the contrary example is the good guy getting in "good" with the evil guys.. The ends doesn't justify the means, and doing evil actually does make him evil. He'll come out the other side a very changed man who'll likely require some atonement and such. (not that he'll necessarily come out CE or anything but it would definately have an effect on his alignment.)
I can just hear a DM
"They want you to take a sword to the child to prove you are with them. What do you do?"
Is the guy really gonna be a good guy if he does it?
Contrasted to the evil guy- he can do whaever good he wants in the guise of good and still be rotten to the core.
Its definately a double standard. But no one ever said being good was easy. :) (or neutral, for that matter.)
-S
About the 3 orcs and a kind example:
Which alignment would it be if the druid killed two of the orks and hurt the third enough to make him about equal to the kid, put a dagger in the kid's hand and walked away to let them fight it out?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I think I agree with Selgard. I think that every action can be classified as Good or Evil (and Lawful or Chaotic). However, that is not to say that your alignment is just the sum of your actions.
In my mind, a neutral druid that opposes the church of Iomedae because Good has become too strong in the land should still remain neutral; Even if he spends his entire life opposing that church.
Again, the problem of how this makes any sense arises. Would it not make more sense to say that he opposes the Church of Iomedae because it promotes the advance of civilization over the natural order? Because why should the druid care if the church merely promotes "Goodness" in the metaphysical sense? What druid would think in those terms?
Does the druid think "Huh, people aren't stealing from or murdering each other nearly as much and are behaving with greater respect and kindness to one another. Oh no! The goodness levels have risen too far! They must be stopped! The order of neutrality must be preserved!" *Sigh* "I guess it's time for me to go burn down an orphanage again."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neutrality is a lack of commitment. The neutral soul has not obtained the spiritual weight of actions necessary for a better afterlife. Once a person embraces an ideal, begins to act on principles rather than needs, their neutrality becomes compromised. Their soul cannot help but sway toward one of the realms beyond death. This is not suspicion. This is religious fact.
Put another way, we observe the principles of Order, Chaos, Good and Evil. The highest and best reward in the afterlife is a place in Heaven, the reward for a Good and Lawful soul, though I have heard foolish arguments arguments to the contrary. The average person, however, lacks the dedication to see Heaven. As some of you have already observed, the peasant or slave often has little concern for principles, only for their continued life and prosperity. As such, most people never acquire the spiritual weight of alignment. This is neutrality. A man or woman might spend his life in war and struggle but never fight for anything more than their home, their family, themself. Not fight for the good of others, nor to fill their pockets with the plunder of wickedness. Such a soul remains neutral. Untested and unswayed.
Consider Greco of Oppara's felicific calculus, a fine Taldan work that helped to shape Chelaxian scholarship on the matter. To calculate the 'weight' of this spiritual alignment is no mean feat, but the vector of an action for the alignment of the soul might be averaged from the happiness resultant from the action's consequences. Taken to some extents, it demonstrates the virtue and good of Queen Abrogail Thrune II and her decisions as Empress, but in a more practical application more in keeping with the intent of Greco, it reminds us: no action is without consequence.
I've found this to be an interesting take on alignment, as well as the other pages on alignment at the same site.
|
|
I can just hear a DM
"They want you to take a sword to the child to prove you are with them. What do you do?"
Is the guy really gonna be a good guy if he does it?
Contrasted to the evil guy- he can do whaever good he wants in the guise of good and still be rotten to the core.Its definately a double standard. But no one ever said being good was easy. :) (or...
Well, the good guy can always bluff it, they shouldn't be trying to trick the baddies if they stink at bluffing.
You say
"okay"
Then fake it, likely injuring yourself so there is blood.
"Whisper in the kids ear "play dead"
Then you ask to dispose of the body, if it is in the hideout. Then once you're out with the "body" tell the kid to run for it and never show his face around again.
Or just leave it there if you're out in the open, hopefully the kid's smart enough to stay still until the nasties are gone.
|
|
I always saw it this way:
Good vs Evil in a nutshell:
A good character doesn't hurt innocent people, and even risk themselves to save strangers.
An evil character would almost never risk themself for another, and certainly not a stranger. They don't care if people get hurt by their actions.
A neutral character won't go out of their way to help strangers, but wouldn't hurt them just for their own benefit either.
There are probably some corner cases and the details of ethics and morality are quite complex of course, but this always seemed like a good rule of thumb to me and it clearly has space for 'neutral' people.
|
|
I've always seen TN like this
1) Doesn't really care about good vs evil and law vs chaos and just wants to be left alone and go on with their daily lives.
2) They're truly commited to keeping the balance of good and evil and think that letting either one get the upper hand will cause the universe to fall apart at the seams. They are highly unpredictable and are not to ever be trusted
3) They follow nature's alingment, and do what will always make sure that nature comes out best
4) They are animals, and follow their instincts. This is also known as Neutral Hungry. They won't bug you unless you bug them, or you look tasty, or they THINK you're a threat. This is the "what would a bear do" path.
5) They're too stupid to know anything else
6) They really don't care about ANYTHING at all, events around them, their health, their personal hygene.
I can just hear a DM
"They want you to take a sword to the child to prove you are with them. What do you do?"
Is the guy really gonna be a good guy if he does it?
Contrasted to the evil guy- he can do whaever good he wants in the guise of good and still be rotten to the core.Its definately a double standard. But no one ever said being good was easy. :) (or...
Well, the good guy can always bluff it, they shouldn't be trying to trick the baddies if they stink at bluffing.
You say
"okay"
Then fake it, likely injuring yourself so there is blood.
"Whisper in the kids ear "play dead"
Then you ask to dispose of the body, if it is in the hideout. Then once you're out with the "body" tell the kid to run for it and never show his face around again.
Or just leave it there if you're out in the open, hopefully the kid's smart enough to stay still until the nasties are gone.
Love the back and forth with you and TOZ :)
On topic though-
I totally agree. A good aligned character wouldn't just gut the kid. And if he did- he'd take an alignment hit. Maybe even swap alignments altogether. Doing evil to thwart evil can be effective but its not necessarily the best way to stay good aligned.
-S
I've always seen TN like this
1) Doesn't really care about good vs evil and law vs chaos and just wants to be left alone and go on with their daily lives.
2) They're truly commited to keeping the balance of good and evil and think that letting either one get the upper hand will cause the universe to fall apart at the seams. They are highly unpredictable and are not to ever be trusted
3) They follow nature's alingment, and do what will always make sure that nature comes out best
4) They are animals, and follow their instincts. This is also known as Neutral Hungry. They won't bug you unless you bug them, or you look tasty, or they THINK you're a threat. This is the "what would a bear do" path.
5) They're too stupid to know anything else
6) They really don't care about ANYTHING at all, events around them, their health, their personal hygene.
How do they do #2?
How do you keep good and evil in balance without commiting evil sometimes? I mean sure, in theory if evil is super powerful you could always do good to thwart evil.. and since you aren't doing good to *be* good I could buy that yuo wouldn't become good.
But if you go doing evil because good is too strong then you are straying from TN and becoming NE.
Doing evil acts makes you evil, regardless of your motivations.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions, so to speak. Saying that you are keeping the balance while doing evil doesn't really make a difference to your alignment. You are still being evil.
So how does a druid stay TN and actively try to maintain any sort of balance?
-S
edit: yuo typo strikes again
How do you keep good and evil in balance without commiting evil sometimes? I mean sure, in theory if evil is super powerful you could always do good to thwart evil.. and since you aren't doing good to *be* good I could buy that yuo wouldn't become good.
But if you go doing evil because good is too strong then you are straying from TN and becoming NE.
I pointed this fallacy out before. I'll do it again.
Doing evil does no more to "undo" your "neutral" alignment than doing good does. Why do you allow a neutral character to "do good" without becoming "good" but if you "do evil" you become "evil?"
This is a fundamental failure to understand the very concept of balance between good and evil.
How do you keep good and evil in balance without commiting evil sometimes? I mean sure, in theory if evil is super powerful you could always do good to thwart evil.. and since you aren't doing good to *be* good I could buy that yuo wouldn't become good.
But if you go doing evil because good is too strong then you are straying from TN and becoming NE.I pointed this fallacy out before. I'll do it again.
Doing evil does no more to "undo" your "neutral" alignment than doing good does. Why do you allow a neutral character to "do good" without becoming "good" but if you "do evil" you become "evil?"
This is a fundamental failure to understand the very concept of balance between good and evil.
I missed it before, but I'll address it now.
I don't consider it to be a fallacy.
IMO: Being good has the intent behind it. No one is accidentally good. You are going out of your way to do it. "oops, I'm good. how'd that happen". No, you are good because you make that decision and then act on it. You weigh the options and take the higher road.
You can very easily be evil accidentally though. You don't have to decide "hmm I'm going to be evil.". Your actions decide it- regardless of what you think, aim, or plan to do.
You can decide "you know what, it'll be good for society to be done with that orphanage.. think of all the taxes that'll be saved!" and go burn it down. Kids and all.
And you just committed an evil act. You are heading down the road towards evil.
*tons* of evil organizations don't consider themselves to be evil. But they are. They think they are doing the right thing, making the new world order.
And I view someone trying to stay TN by doing evil to really be in the same boat. Sure, he has his justifications. "Oh no good is too strong" and all that rot- but doing evil makes you evil, it doesn't make you good or keep you neutral. You have decided to do evil acts to further your goals- whatever goals they are.
I used this example before:
IF an evil person infiltrates a good organization and therefore goes about committing tons of good acts- he doesn't become good from it. Why? Because regardless of his actions done he's there to pursue evil.
If a god person infiltrates an evil organization and therefores goes about committing tons of evil acts though- he does become evil. Now that doesn't mean he can't still do his job- but it does mean he's turned evil. Why? Because regardless of why you are doing evil its still evil and you have the consequences for it.
It is definately harder and more difficult to be good than it is to be evil. Its more difficult to be altruistic and look out for others first and you second, than it is to look out for yourself first second and third.
And when you are there staying "but I want to be TN!" while you commit evil acts.. well, you can say TN all you want to but doing evil is still evil.
I guess it boils down to:
Good is something you are, and work towards, and strive for.
If you aren't doing good or doing evil then you might very well be neutral- but evil is what you become by doing evil.
Or can someone maintain a LG alignment while doing profuse evil and just doing some good works to counterbalance it? "hey its alright, I'm still good because of that church, hospital, and orphanage that I'm funding. What? Killed a few hundred folks? meh. its ok, the good I did more than off set it".
'course not. Thats just a gamist view of alignment. It wouldn't work that way *in game* and it shouldn't to the players either.
-S
|
|
I've always seen TN like this
1) Doesn't really care about good vs evil and law vs chaos and just wants to be left alone and go on with their daily lives.
2) They're truly commited to keeping the balance of good and evil and think that letting either one get the upper hand will cause the universe to fall apart at the seams. They are highly unpredictable and are not to ever be trusted
3) They follow nature's alingment, and do what will always make sure that nature comes out best
4) They are animals, and follow their instincts. This is also known as Neutral Hungry. They won't bug you unless you bug them, or you look tasty, or they THINK you're a threat. This is the "what would a bear do" path.
5) They're too stupid to know anything else
6) They really don't care about ANYTHING at all, events around them, their health, their personal hygene.How do they do #2?
How do you keep good and evil in balance without commiting evil sometimes? I mean sure, in theory if evil is super powerful you could always do good to thwart evil.. and since you aren't doing good to *be* good I could buy that yuo wouldn't become good.
But if you go doing evil because good is too strong then you are straying from TN and becoming NE.Doing evil acts makes you evil, regardless of your motivations.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions, so to speak. Saying that you are keeping the balance while doing evil doesn't really make a difference to your alignment. You are still being evil.So how does a druid stay TN and actively try to maintain any sort of balance?
-S
edit: yuo typo strikes again
TN druid probally doesn't CARE about the balance between good and evil. They will always pick the act that most benifits nature.
For example
there is a village, the village manages their resources well and respects the forest and nature.
Now the Druid gets wind of an orc attack, orcs don't exactly live in harmony with nature. It would be in nature's best interest to warn the village and aid in its defense, because that is also what is best for the forest the druid is protecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sel --
I think we're going to disagree on THIS PARTICULAR, as I don't see refraining from altruism to be evil.
I DO agree with you that intent is important, AND that it is easy to slide into evil... expedience is the surest route to that end, and the easiest.
TL/DR: "not good=\=evil" but circumstances alter cases.
PS - I'm enjoying the thread, thanks.
:)
Sel --
I think we're going to disagree on THIS PARTICULAR, as I don't see refraining from altruism to be evil.
I DO agree with you that intent is important, AND that it is easy to slide into evil... expedience is the surest route to that end, and the easiest.
TL/DR: "not good=\=evil" but circumstances alter cases.
PS - I'm enjoying the thread, thanks.
:)
Its really an unanswered question- heck even governments in the real world struggle with it. I'm reminded of a case up in NY where someone was killed and the neighbors all shut doors/windows and purposefully didn't get involved. There was an outcry about it but really nothing could be done legally.
But is it a good/evil act? Can good men do nothing while evil abounds and still be good?Its definately an interesting question. I'd say that its *probably* something just best RP'd- in that the question isn't as easy or cut and dried as yes/no and mark the alignment accordingly.
The hows, the whys, how the person acted after, and all that could certainly come into play.
And thanks, me too. TN has always been somewhat of a head scratcher to me and I think its done me some good to see the "other side" of the discussion, so to speak.
Thanks to all who're contributing.
-S
Sel, your entire argument rests on the fundamental concept that doing evil is more meaningful than doing good.
In other words, if I am at some point in my life absolutely perfectly balanced on the point of neutrality, then doing good does not impact my alignment as much as doing evil does. An evil act is more meaningful than a good act.
This is a fundamental fallacy in the Pathfinder universe. There is nothing in the RAW or the cosmology that supports this notion. In fact they have gone to great lengths to disavow that notion by doing things like creating anti-paladins as "balance" against paladins. Each just has a vow and follows it.
Now, in the real world there may well be something to this notion that an evil act does more harm to your soul than a good act does good.
But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about a fantasy world which is supposedly based on the notion that good and evil are forces which work in opposite directions but are otherwise "balanced."
That's why your argument is a fallacy. It assume something that is simply not true. It takes a (highly debated) real world philosophical concept and applies it to the fantasy world in spite of evidence that it actually does not apply.
Sel, your entire argument rests on the fundamental concept that doing evil is more meaningful than doing good.
In other words, if I am at some point in my life absolutely perfectly balanced on the point of neutrality, then doing good does not impact my alignment as much as doing evil does. An evil act is more meaningful than a good act.
This is a fundamental fallacy in the Pathfinder universe. There is nothing in the RAW or the cosmology that supports this notion. In fact they have gone to great lengths to disavow that notion by doing things like creating anti-paladins as "balance" against paladins. Each just has a vow and follows it.
Now, in the real world there may well be something to this notion that an evil act does more harm to your soul than a good act does good.
But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about a fantasy world which is supposedly based on the notion that good and evil are forces which work in opposite directions but are otherwise "balanced."
That's why your argument is a fallacy. It assume something that is simply not true. It takes a (highly debated) real world philosophical concept and applies it to the fantasy world in spite of evidence that it actually does not apply.
So in your games, someone who goes down one side of the street with a sword in his hand murdering everyone while tossing out gold and candy to the folks on the other side of the street- is neutral? good and evil cancel out, right?
Or the guy running the orphanage, treating the kids nicely and feeding them well (all good things) while sacrificing one on the altar in the basement to some evil god- is actually neutral or maybe even good aligned?
I mean- if they are equal can't the guy just do good and cancel it all out?
I mean no sarcasm in these questions. Not one bit.
That is the issue though.
If D&D alignment really is some sort of point collecting game then all evil people have to do to be good is just do lots of good deeds. They don't even have to care- they should just do their token good deeds to counter balance the evil that they do.
I propose that it can't work that way. And that it, in fact, does not.
Alignment isn't a collection of positive and negative points that you collect and balance to see what your alignment is. It, rather, is the sum total of what you want to be combined with what you actually do- with the end result depending on what those things are.
So that someone who is trying to be, /and who is also actually doing good things/ is good aligned.
But someone who wants to be good, or thinks that he is being good , or neutral (or evil) but is in reality doing evil things *is evil*.
Such that an individual who wants to be TN but is in reality commiting evil acts, is in fact *evil*. Because thats what doing evil acts makes you.
It boils down to-
Wanting to not be evil doesn't make you not evil. Doing evil makes you evil- regardless of your motives or intentions or thoughts on it.
To the contrary though- You have to want to be good to be good. Otherwise you are just doing stuff.
Is it a double standard? Absolutely. It most certainly is.
Motive matters. You say the rules don't talk about this- but they do.
From the ALignment part of the CRB:
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. "
The neutral person may have no compunction about killing the innocent, but the evil guy is actually out doing it.
You can't do evil deeds and be good. You can't sprinkle candy to the orphans while murdering their parents and claim you are anything but evil.
And you can't go out and be evil and call it TN because of some balance issue.
-S
So in your games, someone who goes down one side of the street with a sword in his hand murdering everyone while tossing out gold and candy to the folks on the other side of the street- is neutral? good and evil cancel out, right?
Murdering is more weighty than giving out candy. Its not that evil weighs more, its that weighty evil acts are easier. To counter act murder, you would need to save a proportionate number of people. For example, perhaps a doctor that brutally kills lots of people in experiments to find a cure for a dangerous plague would be neutral. For a real life example, think the Nazi doctor that did experiments on hypothermia. Reprehensible, yes. But in his own twisted way, he was trying to help people (maybe).
Or the guy running the orphanage, treating the kids nicely and feeding them well (all good things) while sacrificing one on the altar in the basement to some evil god- is actually neutral or maybe even good aligned?
I mean- if they are equal can't the guy just do good and cancel it all out?
I mean no sarcasm in these questions. Not one bit.
That is the issue though.
He is presumably a cleric of an evil god. Ergo he has an Evil aura :) And again it is a question of scope, helping orphans != strengthening the Evil outer powers. A better example would be a wizard that sacrifices orphans to summon devils and destroy them utterly. He murders (that's bad) But he weakens cosmic Evil (that's good). Again, this wizard's actions would be reprehensible and wrong. But his alignment would be neutral.
To the contrary though- You have to want to be good to be good. Otherwise you are just doing stuff.
Going back to your example about an evil guy infiltrating the goodies by pretending to be good. What if for some reason the baddie ended up being undercover for longer than he planned and helped destroy a powerful nascent demon lord. His actions have powerfully swayed the balance of the cosmos to good. Sure, he may eventually betray the good guys, but when he comes to Pharasma's halls, he will have this massive Good mark on his record. I don't think Pharasma will care that he was "under cover," Actions speak louder than words after all.
Check this out:
It's an article (wait for it) All About Alignment.
I found it very interesting, and it's what I reference when using the Alignment system (I originally found the link posted by someone in another thread on the Paizo boards)!
Cheers!
So in your games, someone who goes down one side of the street with a sword in his hand murdering everyone while tossing out gold and candy to the folks on the other side of the street- is neutral? good and evil cancel out, right?Sel, your entire argument rests on the fundamental concept that doing evil is more meaningful than doing good.
In other words, if I am at some point in my life absolutely perfectly balanced on the point of neutrality, then doing good does not impact my alignment as much as doing evil does. An evil act is more meaningful than a good act.
This is a fundamental fallacy in the Pathfinder universe. There is nothing in the RAW or the cosmology that supports this notion. In fact they have gone to great lengths to disavow that notion by doing things like creating anti-paladins as "balance" against paladins. Each just has a vow and follows it.
Now, in the real world there may well be something to this notion that an evil act does more harm to your soul than a good act does good.
But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about a fantasy world which is supposedly based on the notion that good and evil are forces which work in opposite directions but are otherwise "balanced."
That's why your argument is a fallacy. It assume something that is simply not true. It takes a (highly debated) real world philosophical concept and applies it to the fantasy world in spite of evidence that it actually does not apply.
Selgard, this is going to sound harsh, so I apologize in advance. When I see this sort of "argument" I really get discouraged about the other side's true desire to debate the actual issue instead of presenting straw men or otherwise contriving a response that is intended deliberately to make their side look better and the other side look worse.
Obviously "tossing out gold and candy" is not an equal but opposite activity to "murdering everyone". In fact it is so clearly a ridiculous notion that it is hard to maintain civility upon encountering this sort of debate technique.
Let's put it in actual terms of balance. If someone is going down the street murdering everyone on one side of the street, while simultaneously saving the lives of an equal number of people on the other side of the street, then those are balanced acts.
So, is it a balanced act for a character to save the life of an individual to offset every life he takes?
That's a much more plausible argument Selgard. In fact I think plausible enough that you could say "huh... well.... maybe so."
Or the guy running the orphanage, treating the kids nicely and feeding them well (all good things) while sacrificing one on the altar in the basement to some evil god- is actually neutral or maybe even good aligned?
I mean- if they are equal can't the guy just do good and cancel it all out?
I mean no sarcasm in these questions. Not one bit.
That is the issue though.
No, I wouldn't call it "sarcasm" that you are engaging in Selgard. The word I use for this is usually "disingenuous."
You can propose whatever you like. This is, in fact, precisely how the PF world appears to be set up. Evil and Good are opposite forces. If you do enough good, you can, in fact, offset your evil.If D&D alignment really is some sort of point collecting game then all evil people have to do to be good is just do lots of good deeds. They don't even have to care- they should just do their token good deeds to counter balance the evil that they do.
I propose that it can't work that way. And that it, in fact, does not.
Alignment isn't a collection of positive and negative points that you collect and balance to see what your alignment is. It, rather, is the sum total of what you want to be combined with what you actually do- with the end result depending on what those things are.
This is really interesting. You first assert that alignment can't be a "collection of positive and negative points" and then you assert in the exact sentence that it is the "sum total of what you want with what you actually do".
Now there are two things here. First, when you say it's the "sum total" that is logically equivalent to saying that it's the collection of positive and negative points. So you undercut your own assertion.
HOWEVER, you obfuscate the issue by introducing the element of "intent." Instead of focusing on "acts" you now say that it is also important to know what the character "wants." More on that later, since you attempt to cite a rules reference on that point below.
So that someone who is trying to be, /and who is also actually doing good things/ is good aligned.
But someone who wants to be good, or thinks that he is being good , or neutral (or evil) but is in reality doing evil things *is evil*.Such that an individual who wants to be TN but is in reality commiting evil acts, is in fact *evil*. Because thats what doing evil acts makes you.
The interesting thing here is that the subject of this thread is not about "how to be good", it's about "how to be neutral." So if the "intent" of the individual is so paramount, then the "intent" to seek balance is just as valid and just as meaningful as the "intent" to do good or evil. So doing a good act with the intent of seeking balance is, by your own definition here, a NEUTRAL ACT. Just the same as doing an evil act with the intent of seeking balance is also a NEUTRAL ACT.
It boils down to-
Wanting to not be evil doesn't make you not evil. Doing evil makes you evil- regardless of your motives or intentions or thoughts on it.To the contrary though- You have to want to be good to be good. Otherwise you are just doing stuff.
Here we are again with your assertion that intent matters, but now you've made an odd adjustment to the claim that intent matters. It seems now that you are saying intent only matters when you are trying to be GOOD. Intent apparently is meaningless if you are trying to be evil or neutral.
Is it a double standard? Absolutely. It most certainly is.
Is that a "double standard"? I suppose you could call it that. I call it logically indefensible to the point of being totally incomprehensible.
Motive matters.
But ONLY if you are trying to be good, apparently.
You say the rules don't talk about this- but they do.
From the ALignment part of the CRB:"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
Hmm... it appears that even if I accept your premise that the rules support the notion that "intent matters" in the RULES, intent seems to matter for both good AND evil. So we can interpolate from there that intent must matter if you are trying to be NEUTRAL too.
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. "
The neutral person may have no compunction about killing the innocent, but the evil guy is actually out doing it.
You can't do evil deeds and be good. You can't sprinkle candy to the orphans while murdering their parents and claim you are anything but evil.
Sigh... again with the disingenuous nonsense.... Nobody would argue that this is a reasonable "balance" Selgard, but then again, that's why you present it this way.
And you can't go out and be evil and call it TN because of some balance issue.
Yes. You can. You absolutely can. You just have to do enough good to balance it out. Again, maybe that won't fly in the real world. But we're not talking about the real world.
But is it a good/evil act? Can good men do nothing while evil abounds and still be good?
No. But this isn't the question. Neutral can darn sure do nothing while evil abounds and still be neutral.
The only reason a Good-moving-Neutral and a Good-moving-Evil character are difficult to differentiate is because until they hit the line between Neutral and Evil they're moving in the same direction. A becoming-Neutral character stops at that line (provided they ever reach it), unwilling to perform the active malevolence necessary to become Evil. The becoming-Evil may slow or pause at it, but eventually crosses it.
Again, keep in mind that I am arguing that most of the "heroes" in Ayn Rand's literature are not paragon's of virtue and goodness, but rather exemplars of unadulterated True Neutrality, just as Asmodeus is the ultimate exemplar of Lawful Evil. I am not saying that they are "good guys", but I would not label them as "bad guys" either.
Yeah IMO rape crosses you over into Evil, full stop.