The thing about changing alignment because of spells and such , is that i atleast wouldnt give a single damm about it.
If i was playing a wizard/sorc which was good , but i kept using such "evil" spells (something i would never stop just because the game said it was evil) and the GM decided i should change to neutral and then evil , i wouldnt complain.
But my PC would still save people and act like a perfectly good guy , just using evil spells over and over lols.
I believe that in changing the way you roleplay during a story because of certain actions your PC takes , like saving or killing people... i would never do so because im casting spell with a "evil" word on them , unless im actually using them to do evil.
What you are describing is a neutral outlook. The game doesn't care why you are using evil spells, just that you are, since you are literally calling upon evil powers to accomplish your goals.
So casting Animate Dead is an evil action even if used for good purposes. Which would make that characters outlook neutral on the good/evil spectrum.
Doing evil actions with good intentions is neutral. Of course this is assuming that this is the normal behavior of the character.
Yes, the spells are linked to a alignment. But there actually isn't anything in the rules that simply using a spell associated with evil is an evil act. I mean, if you call a devil using Planar Binding, it's a spell with the evil descriptor, that is for certain. But then the mage might say... kill the devil and because it killed them while it was called rather than summoned the death is real and permanent and the mage just permanently removed a bit of evil from the world. The descriptor, rule-wise, means that the spell uses evil in some manner in the process of the spell. The planar binding above has the descriptor because it transported evil. But, there is no actual section of the rules that states that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, merely that evil spells use evil as part of the process. Now, in Golarion at least, we have it as an official ruling from the dev's that it is an evil act, but when it comes to RPG-line, it is not an evil act until it's in a book or FAQ.
"[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."
The definition of descriptors tells you it interacts with alignment, among other things.
Now this doesn't mean the character in question has an evil alignment but repeated use of Evil spells is not a good action.
I could see neutral necromancers raising the dead to use them for good purpose. But assuming this is the normal actions for that character it would lead to a neutral alignment on the good/evil axis.
|
hey guys. here's an idea.
what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate onthe more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration
This is implied in the Ustalav sourcebook, where the high level vampire count is searching for a cure for vampirism because he would simply be thrown in hell if he dies, and he has a loved one who went to one of the celestial planes, otherwise he would just kill himself.
There can't be THAT many people willing to get drained.. unless you're charming them... which is a whole different violation :P
you could always pay for the blood
I love how people keep reiterating the rules as though the people who find them stupid somehow missed how they work. :/
My alignment gets changed to EVIL by magic. It changes my soul into some kind of something or other EVIL(twirls mustache)! We get it. It's still stupid and made for children's stories.
I love how people keep reiterating the rules as though the people who find them stupid somehow missed how they work. :/
My alignment gets changed to EVIL by magic. It changes my soul into some kind of something or other EVIL(twirls mustache)! We get it. It's still stupid and made for children's stories.
Clearly this a children's story.
Just because you don't like a method of story telling doesn't make it stupid or for children.
Try again.
The thing about changing alignment because of spells and such , is that i atleast wouldnt give a single damm about it.
If i was playing a wizard/sorc which was good , but i kept using such "evil" spells (something i would never stop just because the game said it was evil) and the GM decided i should change to neutral and then evil , i wouldnt complain.
But my PC would still save people and act like a perfectly good guy , just using evil spells over and over lols.
I believe that in changing the way you roleplay during a story because of certain actions your PC takes , like saving or killing people... i would never do so because im casting spell with a "evil" word on them , unless im actually using them to do evil.
What you are describing is a neutral outlook. The game doesn't care why you are using evil spells, just that you are, since you are literally calling upon evil powers to accomplish your goals.
So casting Animate Dead is an evil action even if used for good purposes. Which would make that characters outlook neutral on the good/evil spectrum.
Doing evil actions with good intentions is neutral. Of course this is assuming that this is the normal behavior of the character.
Again , if the GM wants to assume using evil spells will change your alignment , then that is fine by me , the good part of usually playing that dont require any alignment , is that i can pretty much ignore whatever my sheet says i should be.
If the GM says i will become neutral (or even evil really) , because im casting spells all day long , my PC will continue to act like a good guy completely ignoring whatever alignment is written on the sheet really.
Again , i will change how my PC acts if my actions change , like my PC starts killing people... Using spells? Honestly , dont matter what my sheet says at the end of the day , may PC will remain whatever he was at the start.
Again , if the GM wants to assume using evil spells will change your alignment , then that is fine by me , the good part of usually playing that dont require any alignment , is that i can pretty much ignore whatever my sheet says i should be.
The GM doesn't have to assume using evil spells will change your alignment, that's part of the core rules, and casting [Evil] spells is an evil action.
Otherwise, i was just using your good intentions necromancer, as an example of how alignment changes when using [Evil] spells like Animate Dead.
The GM doesn't have to assume using evil spells will change your alignment, that's part of the core rules, and casting [Evil] spells is an evil action.That's actually a point of contention around here.
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Then what does this sentence from the Descriptors section mean?
I'm not rehashing that argument here. I'm letting you know that not everyone agrees with what you said.
Fair enough. I just assumed you would explain since you commented on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM doesn't have to assume using evil spells will change your alignment, that's part of the core rules, and casting [Evil] spells is an evil action.That's actually a point of contention around here."Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Then what does this sentence from the Descriptors section mean?
There are classes that cannot cast a spell if it's opposed to their alignment. That's enough to make that sentence true.
Whether that's actually an evil action (for spells like protection from good that don't directly cause evil via their effect, even if they're giving evil creatures an advantage) depends on the metaphysical implications of using an evil spell.
If it's like burning evil oil and it releases evil smoke into the world, someone willing to do that for anything but the direst need is showing callous disregard for the consequences of their actions, which is a hallmark of an evil creature.
If it's just not granted to followers of good deities because it's more likely to hurt people they like than to help them, it would not bend the world to evil. So you can cast those spells without moral compunctions and it would not be an inherently evil action.
Interestingly, based on my reading of the rules, the true answer to that question isn't what's important to alignment considerations. It's what the character has reasons to believe. If they think it might be the first scenario, a good person would try to avoid the risk. The less you care about who or what you hurt in the course of doing what you want, the more that's a sign of being evil.
I don't believe the rules take a stand on which of these is true.
One thing I find funny is that if casting evil spells makes you evil, than casting good spells should make you good. A wizard with summon monster can change his alignment to whatever he wants given time by just repeatedly summoning the right planar monster over and over.
One thing I find funny is that if casting evil spells makes you evil, than casting good spells should make you good. A wizard with summon monster can change his alignment to whatever he wants given time by just repeatedly summoning the right planar monster over and over.
I would have agreed before exploring what I think alignment means in this thread (and rejected the notion that casting aligned spells are aligned actions as a result). This is only true in the circumstance that actions drive alignment rather than actions revealing outlook which drives alignment.
The reason is a good person finds all or at least most evil distasteful. In other words, good people tend to be principled about good (evil people would say ideologues). Typical evil people, on the other hand, tend to be practical about it. They have goals and the most expedient route is evil. They don't mind that they hurt others/the multiverse on the way.
So it's not that building orphanages and burning orphanages don't balance out. It's that someone who's truly evil wouldn't mind building an orphanage if it were expedient (or made them feel like it was OK that they tortured that guy) but someone who's truly good wouldn't be willing to burn that orphanage unless the stakes were incredibly high.
Also to an extent is Good not just the absence of Evil. Virtue is the absence of Vice. There are a few exceptions like generosity, but they are the exception not the rule.
I'm not sure you're right there.
If a man plows his field, and commits no crimes, pays his taxes and generally keeps his head down then you would consider him good wouldnt you?
Neutral requires a lack of care and a willingness to evil as well as good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure you're right there.
If a man plows his field, and commits no crimes, pays his taxes and generally keeps his head down then you would consider him good wouldnt you?
Neutral requires a lack of care and a willingness to evil as well as good.
No. Minding your own business is neutral, not good.
If that same farmer would run to help a sick stranger on the road or take time from his day to run to town to notify a healer, I'd consider him good. If he'd walk to the other side to avoid the contagion, that's neutral. If he'd steal from the dying man, that's evil.
Edit: What TOZ said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure you're right there.
If a man plows his field, and commits no crimes, pays his taxes and generally keeps his head down then you would consider him good wouldnt you?
Neutral requires a lack of care and a willingness to evil as well as good.
Actually, I'd consider him neutral, if only for "keeps his head down." Now, if he took in a homeless orphan, raised him as one of his own children and paid for his education, y'know, like Don Corleone did for Tom Hagen, that would be a "good" act.
No this is Neutral...
"A neutral character is unusual in that she may have one of two distinct philosophies: she may be a person who is neutral because of distrust or apathy toward others, or one who wishes to have a truly neutral stance in the world and rejects extremism.
A neutral character could seem selfish or disinterested. She might be driven primarily by an acceptance of fate, and the most extreme followers of this alignment become hermits, hiding from the zealots of the world. Some neutral characters, however, strive openly for neutrality, and shun any act that veers too extremely toward any alignment. This type of neutral character prides herself on navigating her way between law and chaos, evil and good. She may have a fatalistic view in the face of nature and the fundamental power of night and day."
Not doing evil is enough to make a person good.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where are you getting that? I'm going off of this.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
...
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.
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called "true neutral"). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No this is Neutral...
"A neutral character is unusual in that she may have one of two distinct philosophies: she may be a person who is neutral because of distrust or apathy toward others, or one who wishes to have a truly neutral stance in the world and rejects extremism.
A neutral character could seem selfish or disinterested. She might be driven primarily by an acceptance of fate, and the most extreme followers of this alignment become hermits, hiding from the zealots of the world. Some neutral characters, however, strive openly for neutrality, and shun any act that veers too extremely toward any alignment. This type of neutral character prides herself on navigating her way between law and chaos, evil and good. She may have a fatalistic view in the face of nature and the fundamental power of night and day."
Not doing evil is enough to make a person good.
"Keeps his head down" is pretty much the definition of this kind of disinterested to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't know if this has come up, but in Eberron the Elves have the undying, a type of undead elders who they keep around for their wisdom and advice and they are considered good.
If some one wanted to have say a Paladin sacrifice his life and become an undead Guardian to guard a holy sword in case it was ever needed to defeat a great evil I could see that. Or perhaps have a mystic have his essence trapped in a Mirror, Gem etc so in the future he could give advice to heroes on how to slay said evil, again that I could also see.
technically they are not undead since they are powered by positive energy
No this is Neutral...
"A neutral character is unusual in that she may have one of two distinct philosophies: she may be a person who is neutral because of distrust or apathy toward others, or one who wishes to have a truly neutral stance in the world and rejects extremism.
A neutral character could seem selfish or disinterested. She might be driven primarily by an acceptance of fate, and the most extreme followers of this alignment become hermits, hiding from the zealots of the world. Some neutral characters, however, strive openly for neutrality, and shun any act that veers too extremely toward any alignment. This type of neutral character prides herself on navigating her way between law and chaos, evil and good. She may have a fatalistic view in the face of nature and the fundamental power of night and day."
Not doing evil is enough to make a person good.
Did you mean not enough? Because your example and your statement are at odds.
The game tends to couple 'good' and 'neutral' immortality with becoming an outsider-transcending mortality but remaining a living creature.
Just remember that evil does not mean psychotic murder hobo, it mean you either kill for enjoyment or convievance.
So a lawful evil person isn't necessarily a "bad person" but just that killing people who oppose you is justified in your mind.
Not doing evil is enough to make a person good.
I'm... Uhhh... Just going to go grab something real quick. Hold on.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Now, what exactly were you saying? I mean, let's say you see someone stealing from an old lady, and you say and do nothing to stop it. You're saying that what you've done is the right thing, that it's altruistic?
Just remember that evil does not mean psychotic murder hobo, it mean you either kill for enjoyment or convievance.
So a lawful evil person isn't necessarily a "bad person" but just that killing people who oppose you is justified in your mind.
Evil doesn't actually have to have anything to do with killing. You can be evil without ever killing anyone.
What I'm saying is that the vast vast majority of people get on with the day jobs - aren't tested Peter Parker style, work hard, take care of the their families, pay their taxes and would be considered good people. That is what most people do in the world.
What I said was that many of the things we call virtues are just an absence of a vice. Temperance, loyalty, patience, empathy, hard work.
What is the opposite of murder - not murdering
What is the opposite of theft - not stealing
What is the opposite of slavery - not enslaving
As I said there are few virtues like kindness or generosity (the same thing really except one refers to time and one is belongings)
Neutrality requires either a forced distancing of oneself from other people and causes or an active attempt to maintain a balance. That is why true neutral is such a rare alignment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm saying is that the vast vast majority of people get on with the day jobs - aren't tested Peter Parker style, work hard, take care of the their families, pay their taxes and would be considered good people. That is what most people do in the world.
In pathfinder they would be considered Neutral.
They don't "combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly."They aren't "devoted to helping others".
They don't "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him"
They aren't LG, NG, or CG. They are just people living their lives, with barely any actual interaction with events of immense moral or ethical ties.
What is the opposite of murder - giving birth?
What is the opposite of theft - giving
What is the opposite of slavery - freeing
Fixed that. Simply not doing something evil is not good. To be good requires you actually Do good things. Like protecting people that aren't just your family and friends, freeing people from slavery, giving to the less fortunate, improving peoples lives altruistically, etc.
Neutrality requires either a forced distancing of oneself from other people and causes or an active attempt to maintain a balance. That is why true neutral is such a rare alignment.
No... "Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."
Ok we disagree then. I think most people in the world would consider themselves good people without needing to fight slavery, patrol the streets protecting people and volunteering for charity work.
You say in Pathfinder but alignment is an abstraction of real world ethics with real world examples given.
I think the characterisation of modern society as neutral is unfair.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok we disagree then. I think most people in the world would consider themselves good people without needing to fight slavery, patrol the streets protecting people and volunteering for charity work.
You say in Pathfinder but alignment is an abstraction of real world ethics with real world examples given.
Well, it's not exactly complex in PF. I mean, to be classed as good, you have to do good acts.... To be honest, when it comes to whether I consider someone a good person in real life that is also a requirement. Most people I've met may be good people, but they are definitely not Good people. They might do minor good act on rare occasion, but they are just as likely to do a minor evil act on rare occasion (generally hurt someone feelings to feel a small degree of pleasure). But regardless, to be a Good aligned person, you have to actually do good.
I think the characterisation of modern society as neutral is unfair.
How? And I'm not talking modern society, I'm talking society... At all.
To be good, you have to be good. "Not being evil" does not equal good if neutral is an option, since "Not being Evil" can be Good or Neutral in that case. And since most people who aren't evil don't regardly align themselves with good, they are neutral. There is nothing wrong with that. Being neutral doesn't make you a bad person, it just means that your a regular person.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok we disagree then. I think most people in the world would consider themselves good people without needing to fight slavery, patrol the streets protecting people and volunteering for charity work.
I'd agree. Most people do think themselves good. I might even agree they are more often than not.
Just not according to the Pathfinder alignment rules. Hence why I throw them out of my games. But regardless, the rules still classify such people as Neutral, not Good.
|
Understanding the general implications of undeath in its many Pathfinder iterations, I still don't see becoming undead as an absolute imperative to become evil as a result, unless the form of undeath is unintelligent and not free-willed.
As an example, I'll focus on the Lich. In the description of becoming a lich, there is no part of the process that requires a specifically evil act. Any evil in the process would come solely from the ultimate intent of the person going down that path.
As an example, imagine a human mage (appropriately short-lived in the grand scheme of things) who has been tasked with the duty of guarding something - a location, or object of power, for example. As the mage ages and begins to see that there doesn't appear to be an apparent heir to the duty coming to the fore, yet his/her life is coming towards its inevitable end. That person may make the decision to sacrifice all to continue performing their duties well beyond their natural life spans... at least until another qualified person comes along.
More relevant to an adventuring party, another human mage might see themselves as the guide to the rest of a youthful party (or one made up of beings with much longer life spans) and feels he/she should linger on to continue helping them.
Perhaps the story arch is an intentionally long and complex one, and the character (which, btw, apparently doesn't even need to be a caster, let alone a mage, if they have access to one... warrior liches exist) just can't let death get in the way of saving the world from the end-game bad guy.
Part of my reasoning stems from an appreciation for the potential difficulties of playing such a role. As a lich, one doesn't instantly turn into a rotten corpse-like pile of bones and parchment-skin. That takes decades... even centuries to happen. One could go for years as just an arcane oddity who makes people feel uncomfortable because of a notable aura of something... other.
But all of that just touches upon the subject. Even with NPC's, a ghost...
Creating a Lich
"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery. A lich retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
CR: Same as the base creature + 2.
Alignment: Any evil.
It work that way for any undead, with the exception of the ghosts.
The system gloss over why you become evil, but the template make you evil.
If you want a reason, watch Overlord. You don't feel human emotion anymore, so that will warp your mind and generate a callous state of mind where other guys life don't count anything. or to make the phylactery you need to make undefined evil action. In one adventure you follow the path of a guy preparing a lich potion, the ingredients he is gathering are partially harvested from living creatures. Harvesting the heart of a sentient creature isn't generally seen as a good act, even if it is done for non evil goals.
|
|
also too much positive energy can kill as wellOne thing pointing to the "evilness" of undead is their connection to negative energy. I´m not sure if this has been explored in depth in Pathfinder (I´m waaay behind on my reading).Big hole in your argument is the fact that negative energy is not actually evil. It is used by evil, but not actually evil. In the same way positive energy is used by good but not actually good.The best example supporting this is the condition of Neutral Clerics of Neutral deities, allowing them to choose (on creation) which energy to focus upon.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/paizo-fans-united/general-fea ts/dual-channeling
The dual-channeling feat allows for the use of both by one Cleric, though one is still the primary focus.
Wayfinder #2.
Non Paizo material, especially fan made material, don't seem very relevant to the discussion.
|
|
What's simplistic about the idea is that all X are bad. That means X doesn't require any motivation, characterization, plot, or even thought. That is a way to say X exists for you to kill for points. There's no potential for growth or storytelling involving X. Two things that can help define a character are what they stand for, and what they stand against. When what they stand against is a cardboard cutout with no motivation or characterization, It can make a character seem less meaningful. When bad guys are bad guys because they're bad, doesn't that sound a little simplistic?
Besides, if you think "member of a traditionally evil race seeking redemption" is cliche, try "black and white world", literally one of the oldest storytelling cliches. Think of examples of interesting books, movies, and shows. Do the more interesting ones tend to be ones with a black and white world, or ones with more nuance? Are the interesting ones the ones where all X are Y, or the ones where beings are individuals and have reasons to do what they do? Even Paizo goes beyond the black and white approach in their stories, with members of traditionally good races choosing evil, and members of "always evil" species choosing good.
Absolutes simplify, that's why they're used.
Saying "XX is always evil" is the same as "XX aren't individuals and don't have reasons to do what they do" is even more simplistic than a black and withe world.
"XX is always evil and these are his motivations and reasons" work perfectly.
I had friends play evil characters with perfectly valid motivations and reasons to be that way, the members of my evil races have their goals, motivations, reasons to act in a way or another. Being evil don't remove them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have have been rereading my copies of Van Richten's Guides to X in eager anticipation of the curse of Strahd. They are on Drive Thru Rpg if anyone is interested. They are mainly flavour books and ideas for running a variety of monsters but they also go into a lot of detail about the psychological transition of change from a logical point of view. it is definitely worth a read by anyone thinking of using either good undead or an undead PC.
|
I have have been rereading my copies of Van Richten's Guides to X in eager anticipation of the curse of Strahd. They are on Drive Thru Rpg if anyone is interested. They are mainly flavour books and ideas for running a variety of monsters but they also go into a lot of detail about the psychological transition of change from a logical point of view. it is definitely worth a read by anyone thinking of using either good undead or an undead PC.
This is something I agree with, Van Richten's Guides to Vampires being a personal favorite when it comes to using or playing a vampire in a campaign. It very well explains why a vampire is what they are, and why the evil alignment is nearly always in effect. The psychological effects of being a vampire and why almost all that do become mad or vile as time goes on if not being such right as the change is complete.
I haven't had the chance to read any of the other Van Richten's Guides but I am sure it applies to them as well.
Just started Van Richten's Guide to Ancient Dead (mummies) and ironically it ascribes the mummy's power to the positive energy plane.
I am blown away by the suggestions for extra salient powers, weaknesses, adventure ideas and more that is in each of these books - as well as tips for hunting them.
Of course it is a different setting but there is plenty of flavour in there for DMs and monster hunter PCs. The first RPG product I ever bought was The Doom of Daggerdale and the second was Van Richten's Guide to the Lich... At that point twenty five years ago I was limited to whatever appeared on the shelf in our cities very small comic shop.
Brings back happy memories.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that the people that are so insistent on this alignment bent are also the same people who are ignoring how alignment actually works in the first place?
Not being evil = good!
This is why we can't have a conversation. Some of us are using the actual alignment rules based on what they, y'know, say. Then there's the whole other side who's A-OK with making up random stuff and arguing like it somehow means something.
Well, carry on. >_>
Why is it that the people that are so insistent on this alignment bent are also the same people who are ignoring how alignment actually works in the first place?
Not being evil = good!
This is why we can't have a conversation. Some of us are using the actual alignment rules based on what they, y'know, say. Then there's the whole other side who's A-OK with making up random stuff and arguing like it somehow means something.
Well, carry on. >_>
As someone who is hardline pro-undead-not-all-being-evil, even I have to disagree with this.
Most people would consider themselves good people, that doesn't mean their alignment necessarily good.Some people with low self-esteem or guilt on their shoulders might consider themselves bad people, that doesn't mean their alignment is necessarily evil.
Someone who considers themselves a decent person can still cross the road when they see the victim of a mugging and keep on walking, ala the Good Samaritan. In fact, the Good Samaritan is a perfect 3 alignment story.
The Samaritan is good aligned, he intervenes despite the possibility the bandits might still be around. He does the right thing.
The Bandits are evil, they've left a man dying in the street for his coin.
Those that pass by and did nothing are neutral, not evil, because there was a possible risk to them, if they'd rifled through his wallet first that'd be evil, as they'd be willing to interact with him just for their own benefit.
Another example of a neutral person (Turning NG at the end)? Scrooge. Scrooge doesn't overcharge rent or foreclose because he hates people, but because they owe him money, he doesn't hurt people because he enjoys it but because they had a deal and the other person broke it. Their problems are not his problem, his problem is that they owe him money.
And then, in the story someone shows him just how much this attitude can harm others and he dedicates his life to the world, so that others can live in comfort and happiness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that the people that are so insistent on this alignment bent are also the same people who are ignoring how alignment actually works in the first place?
Not being evil = good!
This is why we can't have a conversation. Some of us are using the actual alignment rules based on what they, y'know, say. Then there's the whole other side who's A-OK with making up random stuff and arguing like it somehow means something.
Well, carry on. >_>
As someone who is hardline pro-undead-not-all-being-evil, even I have to disagree with this.
Most people would consider themselves good people, that doesn't mean their alignment necessarily good.
Some people with low self-esteem or guilt on their shoulders might consider themselves bad people, that doesn't mean their alignment is necessarily evil.
Someone who considers themselves a decent person can still cross the road when they see the victim of a mugging and keep on walking, ala the Good Samaritan. In fact, the Good Samaritan is a perfect 3 alignment story.
The Samaritan is good aligned, he intervenes despite the possibility the bandits might still be around. He does the right thing.
The Bandits are evil, they've left a man dying in the street for his coin.
Those that pass by and did nothing are neutral, not evil, because there was a possible risk to them, if they'd rifled through his wallet first that'd be evil, as they'd be willing to interact with him just for their own benefit.Another example of a neutral person (Turning NG at the end)? Scrooge. Scrooge doesn't overcharge rent or foreclose because he hates people, but because they owe him money, he doesn't hurt people because he enjoys it but because they had a deal and the other person broke it. Their problems are not his problem, his problem is that they owe him money.
And then, in the story someone shows him just how much this attitude can harm others and he dedicates his life to the world, so that others can live in comfort and happiness.
Pretty sure that he agrees with you given how he's talked about Neutral so far.
Ashiel that is because you are trying to reduce a concept that is only slightly mechanical in its function into something purely mechanical. Alignment is about philosophy, morality and personal outlook and there a many ways of skinning this cat. There are literally dozens of interpretations of alignment. There have been whole books devoted to the concepts in some editions; every DMG I have read contains at least a few pages discussing the different approaches; there are endless threads debating alignment impacts.
Trying to say that it is very simple and we should just follow the rules is like looking at F1 racing and saying just drive faster.