Evil isn't stupid, even the most Psychotic and Bloodthirsty of Sadistic Axe Crazy Berserkers can learn to fake a good and positive impression and at least pretend to be amiable, at least to keep themselves off the radar. even such a character wouldn't betray their companions and wouldn't seek PVP. even the Chaotic Evil Pyromaniac Sorcerer knows not to burn the body attached to the hand that feeds her.
It happens often in my group, but I admit I usually interpret it as one player wanting an excuse to be either greedy, or violant. Another would always choose chaotic to be rebellous of the party dynamics, so frankly I view both of those extremes in the same light.
That being said; my players' greatest drawback tends to be they don't naturally mesh. The only time the team gets allied and organized is when I'm a player, because I take on the leader's role.
I think of it like this for Chaotic, and Evil characters. A party does not need to worry about their alignment conflict as much as their ability to work together. Evil and Chaos don't always imply they're selfish or rebellious TO EACH OTHER. Afterall, the Community divine domain, in my mind the epitome of allies cooperating, exists in some demonic patrons, so evil and chaos CAN work with others. It's more often players choosing not to, because: "Lolz I'm an evil badass."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It happens often in my group, but I admit I usually interpret it as one player wanting an excuse to be either greedy, or violant. Another would always choose chaotic to be rebellous of the party dynamics, so frankly I view both of those extremes in the same light.
That being said; my players' greatest drawback tends to be they don't naturally mesh. The only time the team gets allied and organized is when I'm a player, because I take on the leader's role.
I think of it like this for Chaotic, and Evil characters. A party does not need to worry about their alignment conflict as much as their ability to work together. Evil and Chaos don't always imply they're selfish or rebellious TO EACH OTHER. Afterall, the Community divine domain, in my mind the epitome of allies cooperating, exists in some demonic patrons, so evil and chaos CAN work with others. It's more often players choosing not to, because: "Lolz I'm an evil badass."
and i play evil badasses that work alongside a good aligned party, because the party shares mutually beneficial objectives.
using bleeding rain the chaotic evil wood elf huntress with a 5 Charisma again, essentially the south american equivalent to Vlad the Impaler. she had no concern for political power, she cared about 2 things, surviving to continue on, and the thrill both of the hunt and of the the kill. the Party led her to interesting prey, because evil prey was more fun to kill and torture than good prey. the party paladin, who was a stealthy plate clad archer, only afforded his equipment because he recieved a party share of what massive tribute she extorted from oppressing goblins, gnolls, orcs and the like and a share of what profits she earned from selling kobold and lizardfolk slaves to dwarves who needed help in the mines.
the paladin profited off the wood elven huntresses evil, mostly in the form of bribes to turn the other cheek, because the paladin and the rest of the group, needed help and equipment to take on a federation of evil countries working together
the paladin did no evil from accepting bribes from a slaver and thug to turn a blind eye, for he wasn't engaging in slavery or extortion personally, he was just recieving a share as a bribe to turn a blind eye. but said paladin followed a variant of the batman/punisher code of conduct as a variant code. the slaves were traded in areas where they were legal to sell, the extortion was done to uncivilized races in remote regions, plus the guy had like a 5 or 7 wisdom. gold was gold, who cared if a few goblins starved to pay an absurdly large sum to a crazy "demon of the rainforests" who would have enjoyed slaughtering the little green anklebiters like they were merely sheep. accepting bribes is a neutral act of course. as far as the gullible human was concerned, the little elf sent him off on a foraging hunt while she "collected taxes" from the goblins. sometimes, a goblin or few would have a machete between their eyes for nonpayment, but the paladin simply accepted he needed gold to buy better gear to fight bigger evils.
i would explain with a lot of intimidate checks with fat circumstance bonuses due to the fact i placed their chieftan's head upon a pike for public display to get the gold we needed. mostly in trade goods and slaves pulled from their kin. "please offer a bigger tribute next time i arrive" was often a closing word when the paladin returned from foraging mushrooms or whatever. i let them know i was the lunatic that killed their chieftan for drawing an axe on me, in fact, i did this to 7 Orcish tribes, 15 Goblin Tribes, 6 Gnoll Tribes, 9 Lizardfolk Tribes and 3 Kobold Tribes. so 50 tribes i oppressed, i murdered the chieftan of each one to place on public display on their grounds as a reminder of my superiority over their wretched kin.
my Ranger was an asset in defeating 7 evil overlords after dropping many of their mooks effortlessly. i asserted dominance and became the next goddess of slaughter in the afterlife. the PCs kept me around because my vicious cruelty was an asset in defeating the 7 sages. i mean 7 overlords. Bleeding Rain had become Scarlet Fang.
I've only played one evil character among a group of evils. Iron Redd. He was CE and very violent and hedonist. He loved the thrill of the fight and would violent maim or kill anyone that pushed him. That said, sometimes he would defer to the party's judgement. They always had work to do, and he loved getting paid more than stomping on some random noble's neck.
This character would even recognize that, maybe, siding with this immortal evil is a bad idea. He may offer great riches, but he is sure as hell a lot less trustworthy than the current team.
These are just basic self preservation skills. This character was certainly not a nuanced one.
I've only played one evil character among a group of evils. Iron Redd. He was CE and very violent and hedonist. He loved the thrill of the fight and would violent maim or kill anyone that pushed him. That said, sometimes he would defer to the party's judgement. They always had work to do, and he loved getting paid more than stomping on some random noble's neck.
This character would even recognize that, maybe, siding with this immortal evil is a bad idea. He may offer great riches, but he is sure as hell a lot less trustworthy than the current team.
These are just basic self preservation skills. This character was certainly not a nuanced one.
very much like Bleeding Rain. even evil characters would rather side with those they can trust.
If you want to have evil characters in your party, the solution is Geas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes, that'll go over well.
"Sure mate you can pick your alignment but you have to effectively sign over your free will."
I generally don't allow them. Had some really bad situations in the past with evil characters in the party. It would take a hell of a concept and a player I trust implicitly for it to happen. So not impossible, but...I haven't been convinced of it yet at least.
I'd be far more likely to just let everyone play evil and run an evil campaign so everyone is on the same page.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has played every alignment except LE, it 100% depends on the players. Those who want to be jerks will be jerks no matter what alignment they are on paper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit I feel a degree of Schadenfreude when a gm takes a stringent stance against nongoods only to end up with a bunch of people who play 'good in name only'.
I'd much prefer to play with someone who would actually be up front about it and write evil on their sheet.
The episodes I saw did not portray Jayne as necessarily overtly evil. Self absorbed? Yes. And he seemed pretty loyal to some people/friends, even if not all of them.
Yes. Many evil characters are loyal to one or two people. Jayne prefers not to directly betray the captain and does care to some level about at least Book and Kaylee. He also gets a bit of character development, of course, and could even arguably be Chaotic Neutral by the end of Serenity.
it isn't the alignment, it is the player, banning evil just makes players seek justifications and excuses to get around the alignment radar and play the murderous pickpocket they desire to play. if a player wants to be disruptive, they will be disruptive, regardless of alignment.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it sort of feel that, in a perverse sort of way, Evil is held to a higher standard than good?
Everyone assumes the TET is going to go axe-crazy without provocation, or be compelled without recourse to do evil at every opportunity, but no one ever imagines that the good characters are going to be compulsively buying food for the poor instead of better gear, or spending spells to heal lepers and atone for criminals.
Whyzat?
That was, again, because of Jayne's development. He didn't give two s~!*s about Simon and River at the start of the episode—it was their gratitude towards him, and the realization of what River went through, that made him start to feel guilty.
Note, also, that that one episode happens to be the episode where his evil alignment starts to finally become a problem in party unity. Development was the only reason Mal spared him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the problems with TET don't come from maturity or play style; the problems come from expectations and boundaries being very different between players. Take the typical way this sets up with a good aligned group with that one guy who thinks it will be fun to be the only evil guy. The bad guy player expects to be able to get away with evil acts while the good guy players players expect to be out there doing good deeds and punishing evil. Regardless of the role play at some point the evil guy is going to commit an act of evil and the good guys are going to have an issue with it. This is where most games devolve into PvP. But even when they don't you typically have upset players. It is interesting to note that in TV, books, or movies the TET usually has a lovable side and usually backs down in the face of working with good team mates allowing the group to continuing to function even during an impass. Now if a TET player can do the same then things might go fine, but most players I have seen who have such an interest in playing this type of character also don't want to have to back down at all.
The best example, bar none, of the Token (Lawful) Evil Teammate is Gerald Tarrant, from the Coldfire Trilogy.
Depends on the player. many groups restrict paladins for the same reason
Never seen that.
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?
Almost never/never.
After a couple of attempts, it has been determined that my particular players can't really handle it and/or figure it out.
|
|
Depends on the player. many groups restrict paladins for the same reasonNever seen that.
Truthfully, I could see restricting Paladins for the same reason as the TET.
If a player lacks the maturity to do it right, it will end badly. More likely with the Paladin than the TET, because Lawful Stupid is easy, and because you can attempt to drag the rest of the party with you on the basis of your "Code".
|
Depends on the player. many groups restrict paladins for the same reasonNever seen that.Truthfully, I could see restricting Paladins for the same reason as the TET.
If a player lacks the maturity to do it right, it will end badly. More likely with the Paladin than the TET, because Lawful Stupid is easy, and because you can attempt to drag the rest of the party with you on the basis of your "Code".
Lawful stupid and the control freaks of alignment...
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it sort of feel that, in a perverse sort of way, Evil is held to a higher standard than good?
Everyone assumes the TET is going to go axe-crazy without provocation, or be compelled without recourse to do evil at every opportunity, but no one ever imagines that the good characters are going to be compulsively buying food for the poor instead of better gear, or spending spells to heal lepers and atone for criminals.
Whyzat?
No idea, but it is very true. You can search around on these forums (and any other gaming forums) and find all sorts of reasons why a Paladin can murder goblin babies *because it would be inconvenient for him to have to drop them off at an orphanage,* or why torture is 'good' if there's a ticking time bomb or something, and yet if an evil character decides to send some gold home to his mother, or just isn't in the mood to kick this particular puppy right this second, it's defcon crazy and 'you're doing it wrong,' as if an E on a character sheet means that you can't actually roleplay anything more nuanced than one of the creepy inbred peeps from the last Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie.
But that sort of weird double standard has been around for a long time. In 3.X, want to be a champion of good and get kewl super-powers? You can do that at 1st level, 'cause they have schools for Paladins. Want to be a champion of evil and get kewl super-powers? Minimum 5th level, certain skills and feats and accomplishments, and *you have to personally impress a demon or devil.* Evil was very much *not* the 'quick and easy path,' and was mechanically weaker, and required a lot more personal sacrifice. Good pretty much handed out candy if you walked in the door.
Plus the planar structure just reinforced that. If you worshipped good, you got great healing and a promise of eternal paradise. If you worshipped evil, you had a hard life and an even harder dog-eat-dog afterlife. Anyone who wanted the easy ride, picked Team Good, because that's where all the rewards came from, which freakishly made it so that the most devoted and selfless of the devout would logically be on Team Evil, since they *obviously* didn't sign up for the generous healthcare and great retirement plan that comes with signing up for Team Good. Following the inherent logic of the game, Team Good would be *crawling* with selfish folk who signed up for the free bennies.
Now that's pretty obviously not what any game designer, from 1st edition onward, *wanted* to send as their message, that Good is the 'quick and easy path' and that only really devoted and selfless sorts embrace Evil, but that's pretty much the way it's been hard-coded into the game. Evil is *never* 'tempting' or an 'easy route to power.' It's generally mechanically inferior and not even a tiny bit 'tempting,' because you can get better stuff from Team Good.
And since 'hero,' for me, has often been associated with the Davids and not the Goliaths, with the plucky underdog, with the person who is having to struggle to overcome great odds, and not the one who has everything handed to them on a silver platter and to whom the world automatically caters and defers, I'm in the odd position of finding the evil-er fantasy characters more innately 'heroic' (if not noble or kind or benevolent) than the entitled champions of the status quo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. That's pretty true.
The first game I played Sun Xiao in had me threatening to torture a guy for info. He gave us the info, and I was like "Eh, we got what we needed, let's beat the s@*@ out of him until he's unconscious and go".
The GM was like "Aren't you supposed to be evil" and it went on and on and after about 5 minutes I wanted to move on from trying to explain that just because I'm evil doesn't mean I have to do evil things for the sake of being evil and I just shoved my hand through his chest and ripped his heart out and we moved on, happily.
Once again Set knocks it out of the ballpark.
.
For every evil PC there is a good PC going back in time to kill him when
he was young and relatively easier to kill.
So, the net result is more good PC's walking around at any point in time. Those
that should be here, and those that have traveled back to "be here".
.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, Set and Ryjin are going on about what I'm talking about.
I suggested a NE character - a Magnificent Bastard sort ala Al Swearengen-- to a GM I was playing with who is really generally a very good GM, and he recoiled in horror. He was convinced my NE character would betray the party at the first opportunity. I was agog- while my NE probably WOULD betray the party, it wouldn't be at the FIRST opportunity- it would be at the BEST opportunity.
I explained that if you're NE, you're motivated entirely by self-interest. Aligning yourself with a group of people who make you stronger and enable you to garner more power, prestige, and wealth makes perfect sense. And I would be absolutely out for the best for the group (and thus, myself) up until the point where I A- didn't need them or B- got an undeniably better offer.
He countered that I would lie, cheat, kill, and steal from teammates. I said that I wouldn't, because my character is not stupid. Just being NE doesn't mean that you have absolutely no self control- it means you don't exercise self-control where it won't benefit you to do it.
I dropped the idea when it became clear we just had very disparate ideas about what a NE, and indeed what any Evil character, would do in a group setting. But it really got me thinking.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. That's pretty true.
The first game I played Sun Xiao in had me threatening to torture a guy for info. He gave us the info, and I was like "Eh, we got what we needed, let's beat the s+~# out of him until he's unconscious and go".
The GM was like "Aren't you supposed to be evil" and it went on and on and after about 5 minutes I wanted to move on from trying to explain that just because I'm evil doesn't mean I have to do evil things for the sake of being evil and I just shoved my hand through his chest and ripped his heart out and we moved on, happily.
I would like to clarify because re-reading my post it seems like I implied I ripped my GMs heart out and moved on. I did not, in fact, murder my GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't attest that Rynjin did, in fact, murder his DM.
As a general rule I don't allow evil characters because I prefer heroic games and because I've had some very bad experiences with evil PCs in the past. However, I could be convinced to allow an evil PC if the player presents a really intriguing or exciting character concept.
As for why they wouldn't just kill the other party members: I require every PC begin with a preexisting connection to at least 1 other PC; family members, childhood friends, Army buddies, sweethearts, or whatever else the players come up with. Not only does this make it easier to explain why they're all hanging out together, it gives the PCs a plausible reason to want to watch each others' backs. Even a completely evil character can believably have the attitude that "Nobody messes with my family."
does "exile left under the jurisdiction of a PC for sentencing" Count?
does "exile left under the jurisdiction of a PC for sentencing" Count?As a general rule I don't allow evil characters because I prefer heroic games and because I've had some very bad experiences with evil PCs in the past. However, I could be convinced to allow an evil PC if the player presents a really intriguing or exciting character concept.
As for why they wouldn't just kill the other party members: I require every PC begin with a preexisting connection to at least 1 other PC; family members, childhood friends, Army buddies, sweethearts, or whatever else the players come up with. Not only does this make it easier to explain why they're all hanging out together, it gives the PCs a plausible reason to want to watch each others' backs. Even a completely evil character can believably have the attitude that "Nobody messes with my family."
You mean as a connection? Sure, as long as the other PC in question is agreeable.
yeppies, i had a Wood Elf Exile who was sentenced to be supervised by the Party Bard. but i found ways to get around the paladin's code to prevent him from pushing it on others.
but usually my problem isn't evil characters traveling in a good and neutral party if their objectives compliment each others, it is more whether or not the player is a jerk, such as the case of most lawful stupid paladins, greedy stupid thieves. and backstabbers who would sell the tagalong child as a slave to buy a magic item because they didn't like how the little girl was more of a team player than them and didn't see the real contributions she was doing through something besides DPR.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it sort of feel that, in a perverse sort of way, Evil is held to a higher standard than good?
Everyone assumes the TET is going to go axe-crazy without provocation, or be compelled without recourse to do evil at every opportunity, but no one ever imagines that the good characters are going to be compulsively buying food for the poor instead of better gear, or spending spells to heal lepers and atone for criminals.
Whyzat?
Why I have an example of this just the other day from my game. My NG cleric of Sarenrae (Nice for the win!) made a gesture- he gave to a person from a very distant place a copy of his holy text, and a pair of spectacles of understanding as well. The rest of the party objected rather strenuously to simply giving away a 5K piece of loot with no mechanical benefit, even though it was entirely within my character's appropriate scope of behavior.
Apparently when good is actually altruistic, even others who consider themselves good will object. Why? Because truly being good isn't the norm for good players. My story wouldn't be remarkable if players held Good to the same standards as Evil.
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?
How many of you as players have played alongside or as the token evil teammate?
What roles do you guys find most fitting for the TET in terms of group dynamics? Alignment? Classes?
I'm always sort of fond of the TET characters. Be they Jayne from Firefly, Alice Morgan from Luther, Loki from the most recent Thor movie, Jack from ME2, Morrigan from Dragon Age- I feel like the TET can provide a valuable perspective to an otherwise monolithic group of "heroes" (or muderhobos, depending on your group). They can give the opportunity, if played well, of interpersonal friction within the party that doesn't necessarily lead to blows. You can redeem 'em! You can fall to their level! They can provide a pragmatic counterpoint to an otherwise circuitous plan!
Just not in a party with a Paladin. Ever.
I allow evil characters, they aren't hard to put in, fit in and make work.
I have been the token evil teammate and been on teams with evil.
I encourage diverse roleplaying experiences, not the usual classes, races or alignments.
Does it sort of feel that, in a perverse sort of way, Evil is held to a higher standard than good?
Everyone assumes the TET is going to go axe-crazy without provocation, or be compelled without recourse to do evil at every opportunity, but no one ever imagines that the good characters are going to be compulsively buying food for the poor instead of better gear, or spending spells to heal lepers and atone for criminals.
Whyzat?
No idea, but it is very true. You can search around on these forums (and any other gaming forums) and find all sorts of reasons why a Paladin can murder goblin babies *because it would be inconvenient for him to have to drop them off at an orphanage,* or why torture is 'good' if there's a ticking time bomb or something, and yet if an evil character decides to send some gold home to his mother, or just isn't in the mood to kick this particular puppy right this second, it's defcon crazy and 'you're doing it wrong,' as if an E on a character sheet means that you can't actually roleplay anything more nuanced than one of the creepy inbred peeps from the last Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie.
But that sort of weird double standard has been around for a long time. In 3.X, want to be a champion of good and get kewl super-powers? You can do that at 1st level, 'cause they have schools for Paladins. Want to be a champion of evil and get kewl super-powers? Minimum 5th level, certain skills and feats and accomplishments, and *you have to personally impress a demon or devil.* Evil was very much *not* the 'quick and easy path,' and was mechanically weaker, and required a lot more personal sacrifice. Good pretty much handed out candy if you walked in the door.
Plus the planar structure just reinforced that. If you worshipped good, you got great healing and a promise of eternal paradise. If you worshipped evil, you had a hard life and an even harder dog-eat-dog afterlife. Anyone who wanted the easy ride, picked Team Good, because that's where all...
Well said.
Evil also can have real trouble getting or calling in backup, especially for the lone evil agents. If law and good are strong, their movement can be restricted and difficult. Which means they are on their own, up to their own devices and they have to be cunning, resourceful individualists (which are traits still lauded today) to survive, let alone succeed.
Go evil! You wonderful underdog.
|
Now this is just my opinion. I do not allow evil alignments. This leaves my players with LN, N, NG, LG, CG, and reticently CN.
I have found that players playing evil alignments eventually lead into inter party conflict, which leads to player vs player combat. Now it may not be the same for all groups. There may be players and groups that can handle evil players. In my 25+years of playing and GMing, I have yet to find such players. So I save myself the headache an evil player character will cause and head that problem off at the pass by dis allowing evil alignments in the game.
Now I have run evil campaigns in the past. Everyone had an evil alignment. We did have lots of fun. My "reason" for all the players characters for being together, was that they were all cousins, and their grandfather was Lord of their feudal fief. Their grandfather, a baron, ruled in the duke's name. They were adventurers who had to do things for the betterment of the "family". I ran the noble house like a mob family. They all had an uncle who minded them and gave them "jobs" to do for the family.
As someone posted up thread, one interesting difference between good party and an evil party, was that because all of the "jobs" done for the "family" were off the books, these PCs were very much on their own, and there wasn't any back up for them.
So in general no I don't allow evil player characters, unless the entire game is evil.
|
|
I find this whole thread interesting...
Personally, I don't like "murderhobos" or "murderhobo" style games, and I don't like "Good in name only"-- I tend to at least try to hold "good" up to higher standards than seems to be common in most people's gaming experience.
At the same time, I'm observing this "high standards for evil play" and LMAO. To be of "evil" alignment, really requires not much more than being thoroughly ruthless, end-justifies-the-means, and willing to cut all kinds of corners to get what you want. One can be honorable, trustworthy, and dependable, and still be evil because you also have no mercy and no restraints regarding killing anything that opposes your friends and yourself... One can also be evil in alignment, and yet not only not see yourself as evil, but be dedicated to serving and supporting ultimately good goals for your community and your friends-- you're just too vicious about how you go about achieving them...
As others have stated-- you don't have to play an evil character as an axe-crazy murdering psychopath who can't work with others in order to correctly play your alignment. I'd also agree with the statements that it depends on the maturity level of the group, but I normally don't see huge problems in having a TET in the group, so long as it's played well in a group that can handle it. I've played the TET in a few games-- and what made them "evil" was what I mentioned before-- simply, ruthless, a little bit far on the selfish scale, willing to cut too many corners... not a lack in trustworthiness (within the team) or lack of ability to work with others long-term.
Although-- for the record, I tend to prefer playing good characters, and trying to make them Good characters, not just "good in name only". I like playing in heroic games, although it's sometimes been most interesting to play the token good team-mate in a largely neutral/selfish group of characters.
|
|
Not really. If you're Neutral character is regularly "getting rid of problems" and applying "advanced interrogation techniques" on a regular basis, he's not going to stay Neutral for long.Anybody can do that. Well, not Paladins, but who cares about them.I allow them for players I trust to do it properly, or in a campaign with mostly Evil or evil leaning Neutral characters (like my Skull and Shackles game).
My favorite alignment is Lawful Evil. I find it very fun to play, and it doesn't cause any problems with a normal party if you play it right.
You get to be the guy who does the dirty work, the necessary but unsavory things. But, of course, you don't see yourself as evil.
Depends on what else the neutral character is also doing... some fairly evil actions, plenty of generally good actions, tend to balance themselves out. That, and (other than Paladins) even good characters sometimes do bad things, and bad characters often wind up serving the greater good-- without resulting in changes in overall alignment. Now, if the neutral character is "kill'em all, all the time", then he/she might be on the downward slide to evil alignment...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO there's some things you can't just "bounce back from" as far as evil goes.
Torturing someone isn't somehow balanced out by saving someone...it's still evil. It's not like Fallout 3's karma meter where you can balance out evil karma from murder by giving a guy a bunch of purified waters.
I like and allow evil characters, but if you're going to be evil, OWN IT, not try to "juggle karma" to stay Neutral for whatever reason.
It also helps keep Good as a higher standard. An Evil person will torture, murder, etc. all the time. A Neutral character might do it in the direst of circumstances, but it will probably haunt them somewhat. A Good character will never (or almost never, with some very narrow mitigating circumstances) resort to those measures.
|
|
Rynjin--
I agree with the higher standard for good characters, but, fact remains that good people sometimes do bad things, and then pull themselves back up and find redemption for their lapses. With exceptions (acts that cross the "moral event horizon"), one evil act does not automatically condemn a character to alignment shift-- repeated evil actions, or a pattern of evil behavior, does. In keeping with the 'higher standards' line of thought, though-- a good character who repeatedly refuses to act, or continuously acts in a "neutral" fashion, never exhibiting concern for, well, doing good in the world.... will eventually slide into an alignment shift to neutral as well... but it's also not going to be instant.
On the other hand, for neutrals... I think the moral event horizon is a lot farther down before you definitely lose claim to neutrality. I do think there are still acts that go far enough that they do cross that line between staying neutral, and you're just plain evil. Torturing for kicks'n'grins is probably across that line and you're headed down the road to evil pretty quick. Torturing because you need information and don't have other ways to pry out of someone, isn't good-- but it's not as much of an evil act as one might wish to consider it to be. So, IMO-- one irredeemably evil act would do it. A repeated, generally unmitigated and/or unjustified pattern of evil acts and/or behavior would do it; but a neutral character can get away with some more or less evil acts every now and then (so long as they are not crossing the no-return line), if he/she can justify the actions and isn't generally behaving/acting in an evil fashion.
That remains my opinion on the matter (also, there is the point/option that characters can slide the other way, if they never ever act as evil-- my view on alignment and effects in game do place quite a bit of importance on intentions and motivations though, not just a shopping list of specific acts and outcomes-- if you're constantly achieving good, but for all the wrong reasons, your alignment is not going to move towards good).
I remember one npc I threw in. A young man to be saved. He had really crossed the moral event horizon, kicked the dog and ran to the hills. He had excuses, some of them weren't too bad, but to leave his old self behind and become a hero required a lot of work.