Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pres_man 03-05-05, 11:14 AM	If a person stands by and allows an evil act to happen without interfering is that "action" of not interfering (not the person, because we don't know what all else is going on) considered an evil act, a neutral act, or a good act? My personaly position on it is that it is a neutral act, you are not trying to stop evil (non-good) on the same time you are not helping do the evil (non-evil).
Lord Ian Stark 03-05-05, 11:24 AM	If a person stands by and allows an evil act to happen without interfering is that "action" of not interfering (not the person, because we don't know what all else is going on) considered an evil act, a neutral act, or a good act? My personaly position on it is that it is a neutral act, you are not trying to stop evil (non-good) on the same time you are not helping do the evil (non-evil). Outside of that "person" being a Paladin I would say it is a neutral act and an ok act. In RL when something like this happens most people just freeze or look the other way. The typical herd mentality of if it's not hurting me I can mind my own business and be ok. However if you have characters that are LG I would probrably say they have to do something, even if all you do is report it to the local authorities.
ehrin 03-05-05, 11:50 AM	In my opinion, that 'inaction' is tainted with some of the evil of the action that was ignored. Failure to act, when it is possible to act, is an action. Failure to act, when it was impossible to act, is not. The fact that my sorcerer does not save a baby from falling to death in a jungle thousands of miles away is not an action. My sorcerer standing by and simply watching a baby fall to its death at his feet IS an action (of inaction). I think simply allowing evil to go uncorrected is a bit evil itself. Granted, not alignment changing evil, but it is less good than doing something to stop it. It is very relative, it depends on what the character COULD have done, and what that impact would have been as well, but simply ignoring evil is not a good thing. The more evil the thing was, and the more that some action by the PC could have corrected it, the more the inaction becomes tainted and is evil of itself.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 01:06 PM	It depends on the action taken. A lawfull character would be compelled to try to maintain order and law, while a chaotic would react based on personal morals.
Vharuck 03-05-05, 01:17 PM	In real life, this can be a disgusting thing. Ever hear of the woman who was attacked and stabbed while (IIRC) 35 people watched from their apartments, doing nothing? Nobody called the cops. They called their neighbors to talk about it while it happened. Some even pulled up chairs to their windows to get a better view. Heck, one even watched the whole thing from an elevator that look over the street, then walked away and took a nap while it was still happening. However, D&D alignment is a whole different issue. In D&D, inaction in order to save your own hide or preserve your own goals is Neutral.
Callista 03-05-05, 01:28 PM	It also matters if the evil action is being taken by a party member. Simply remaining an uninvolved observer near a mugging, where you don't know the mugger, is different from stopping your party members from mugging someone. Involving yourself in the first situation is more dangerous because of the unknown factors: You don't know if you're stronger than the muggers; you don't know the background of the victim or anyone else involved. In this situation, not involving yourself is Neutral--it's self-preservation. (If a Paladin or Cleric or other character with a responsibility to step in did this, however, let's hope he knows a cleric who'll cast Atonement.) However, if you're anywhere above 5th level, your skill gives you responsibility to act, since you're probably the only person around who has a decent chance of helping. Also, if you don't at least yell for the city watch or make your presence as a witness known to discourage things,, you're acting in an evil way. However, if your friends are involved--either as victim or perpetrator--you have responsibility towards the situation. You know your friends' capabilities; you may be able to stop them without violence; or if your friend is the victim your responsibility towards him as a friend means you should step in. In this case, involving yourself is a Neutral or Good act, while walking away is Evil. Getting someone else to handle the situation--say, calling the city watch--is Neutral as well (probably LN).
Lord Ian Stark 03-05-05, 01:36 PM	I think simply allowing evil to go uncorrected is a bit evil itself. Evil is happening everyday all over the world. Some of it you know about and others you don't. According to your statement, we are all commiting a little bit of evil everyday. If you read the description of LE in the PH, you will see that many countries leaders are by deffinition LE. You know this and do nothing. Why because you probrably have no way of making it better. Are you to be seen as a little bit evil for your ignorance? Turn on the news any night of the week and you will see a dozen or so stories or rape, murder, child molestation, burglary, etc. Some of those people are out there and possibly in your neiborhood. Why are you not out there trying to stop it? Is it because you are a little evil? I think not. It is very relative, it depends on what the character COULD have done, and what that impact would have been as well, but simply ignoring evil is not a good thing. The more evil the thing was, and the more that some action by the PC could have corrected it, the more the inaction becomes tainted and is evil of itself. I agree in the simple fact that if you have a wand of "stop the badguy in his tracks" and don't use it then what does that make you? In D&D this makes you Neutral. There can be a number of reasons you didn't use it. Those reasons can be Good, Evil, or Neutral. However the act of inaction is just Neutral. Page 105 in the PH 3.5 under LN- Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is Lawful Neutral.
Callista 03-05-05, 01:43 PM	There's a difference between knowing there are bad things happening and not having the power to prevent them, and knowing they're happening and being able to easily prevent them, as many PCs can. Because if you CAN help easily and without risk, then looking the other way is evil. If it's hard or dangerous, then not helping is neutral.
Lord Ian Stark 03-05-05, 01:52 PM	There's a difference between knowing there are bad things happening and not having the power to prevent them, and knowing they're happening and being able to easily prevent them, as many PCs can. Because if you CAN help easily and without risk, then looking the other way is evil. If it's hard or dangerous, then not helping is neutral. According to you Ember the Monk is evil. According to the RAW, Ember the Monk is neutral. Are saying that helping stop the evil is a good act or an obligation? If it is an obligation than who are ALL these people that "Have to act" obligated to? If it is a good act then let me show you another quote from Page 105 in the PH 3.5 under Neutral, "Still, she's not personally commited to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."
aaron3579 03-05-05, 02:13 PM	Turn on the news any night of the week and you will see a dozen or so stories or rape, murder, child molestation, burglary, etc. Some of those people are out there and possibly in your neighborhood. Why are you not out there trying to stop it? Is it because you are a little evil? I think not. Oh yes you are. It is the responsibility of every citizen to report crime when they see it happen. The police are the public and the public are the police. If you aren't in some way contributing to the betterment of your community, you are wrong. Seeing crime on the news will motivate a good person to do something. I'm not talking vigilantism here, but it is everyone's responsibility to participate in some sort of neighborhood watch program. Seeing pictures of tens of thousands of people being washed away in a tsunami should motivate you to get off of the couch and make a check out to The Red Cross. At the same time, you have to realize that there is only so much that you can do. So long as you are putting fourth some sort of valid effort to serve the greater good, you should feel as if you have done your part. (If everyone did their part, what a wonderful world this would be.) In real life, this can be a disgusting thing. Ever hear of the woman who was attacked and stabbed while (IIRC) 35 people watched from their apartments, doing nothing? Nobody called the cops. They called their neighbors to talk about it while it happened. Some even pulled up chairs to their windows to get a better view. Heck, one even watched the whole thing from an elevator that look over the street, then walked away and took a nap while it was still happening. However, D&D alignment is a whole different issue. In D&D, inaction in order to save your own hide or preserve your own goals is Neutral. This poster said it best. D&D is not real life, and by the core rules, neutrality exists. I don't like those rules, so I change them.
pres_man 03-05-05, 06:18 PM	Score so far for alignment of allowing an evil act to occur (by the RAW): Neutral: pres_man Lord Ian Stark (for non-LG) Vharuck Callista (for unknown person doing the evil act) aaron3579 Evil: Lord Ian Stark (for LG) ehrin (faint taint) Callista (for known person doing the evil act) Good: No one yet (big surprise) Undecided: weasel fierce (focusing on law vs. chaos, not sure as to good vs. evil) If I misstated anyone's view please let me know, also if anyone else has a view/opinion/vote they wish to make feel free.
Temrek 03-05-05, 06:33 PM	If you just stand by and watch becouse you are not sure if you can do anything to stop it, say you are in the middle of a desert and you are a merchant and you see a trained warrior rape a woman, its neutral. If you think you can do something though its at least a little bit evil (not enough to warrant an alignment change unless repeated a bit). Thats my opinion.
ehrin 03-05-05, 07:08 PM	Aside to Lord Ian Stark Yes, i honestly believe that I am tainted with a bit of "evil" in my life's balance, because of the inactions I take. I know I can't change the entire world, or save everyone, but that doesn't excuse me from caring or trying. I can affect the world around me, and i try to, one step at a time, in hopes that the good I do balances out (and maybe overcomes) the little evil that I support/condone by not being able to do anything, or by not wanting to do anything (I COULD give all my money to charity, but I don't. I keep a lot of it for me). That's my life balance/philosophy, and I certainly don't believe everyone else should follow it. As for your remarks on Ember, the monk, I have to say... you raise an excellent point. I will have to ponder that..
JKnight 03-05-05, 07:27 PM	It's obviously neutral. Clearly. Could it be good? Sure, if someone were too frightened to do anything. It might be cowardly, but who in the hell ever said that all cowards were neutral or evil? That's just plain simple minded as view points go. JK
aaron3579 03-05-05, 08:01 PM	...who in the hell ever said that all cowards were neutral or evil? That's just plain simple minded as view points go. I did. Cowardice itself is evil. It is self-centered and it does not serve the greater good. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. The soldier in Saving Private Ryan who failed to save his buddy from being slowly stabbed to death committed an evil act. He heard the struggle going on, he had a rifle in his hands, and he just stood there at the bottom of the stairs, too terrified to move. This doesn't make him evil overall, but it is a step in the wrong direction. To most people this is a law v. chaos issue, and to an extent they are correct. But in my mind, such a blatant disregard for the oaths that you have taken, coupled with allowing a fellow soldier to die (even because you are scared) constitutes evil. Also, there is a difference between the ability and the willingness to help. But in most cases, you can do something.
Temrek 03-05-05, 08:31 PM	I dont think courage is alignment related.
aaron3579 03-05-05, 09:41 PM	Think about what courage is. Think about what cowardice is. cow病rd品ce n. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. cour病ge n. The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery. Cowardice is putting your well being ahead of your responsibility to serve the greater good. It is selfish and evil. Courage is refusing to do so. I can definitely respect your opinion, but I have put a lot of thought into mine. Like I have said before: being good is hard. If my players want to have a character tagged with LG, they've got to earn it.
ManinDarkness 03-07-05, 06:39 PM	Cowardice is putting your well being ahead of your responsibility to serve the greater good. It is selfish and evil.Selfishness<>evil. Not doing good<>evil. Eating is a selfish act, but is very, very neutral.
Arrowhen 03-07-05, 07:09 PM	Think about what courage is. Think about what cowardice is. cow病rd品ce n. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. cour病ge n. The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery. Cowardice is putting your well being ahead of your responsibility to serve the greater good. It is selfish and evil. Courage is refusing to do so. I can definitely respect your opinion, but I have put a lot of thought into mine. Like I have said before: being good is hard. If my players want to have a character tagged with LG, they've got to earn it. You're attaching a moral value to courage which is not present in the definition you quoted. If I'm a businessman who steadfastly refuses to let a gang of armed thugs run me out of business, then I'm acting in a courageous manner. However, if my "business" consists of kidnapping children and selling them into slavery then I'm using that courage to further an evil goal.
Vharuck 03-07-05, 07:34 PM	Courage doesn't have one opposite. If an army were invading, and I were a lone man at my post, should I stand against them? I certainly can't climb donw the watchtower to report it, since they'll see and kill me. But if I hide in the tower they'd probably pass right by and not waste time. Is this cowardice? No. Courage is the median between rashness and cowardice. Watching a crime and attempting to stop the person when you know you can't and that it will only end badly is called rashness, and is as bad as cowardice. One must learn to take stock, and fear is a major factor here. You may sicken some for having fear, but this is more sickened by the weaknesses of humanity, not the evils its capable of.
Mandarbgrim 03-07-05, 07:39 PM	Courage..the bank robber having a shoot out with the police while trying to get away showed great courage in the face of the barrage of lawful bullets. Blah.. Cowardice may be tainted..but courage certainly isn't good by definition. The character commited a Neutral act. This neutral act should make the character consider his own morality if he is good. If it happens to that character a lot it should shift his alignment to Neutral. Only Paladins and Exalted characters would be in trouble for not doing anything in this situation. Allowing something to happen is certainly not evil, but it is far from good. Simply neutral..like most of the population in D&D anyways. D&D is objective..Black and White. Since this black and white nature is not agreed upon by everyone then it must be in real life a subjective matter. I am increasingly tempted to run a campaign that bans all objective references to alignment from it. I am already close to it with Eberron.
Drachasor 03-07-05, 08:01 PM	I have to agree that this is neutral. It is however, the difference between good and neutral people that makes the good turn away from the neutrals with disgust. The only arguement you can make for it being evil is when action can be taken without any harm or cost to the person taking action. -Drachasor
FriendoftheDork 03-07-05, 08:08 PM	Not daring to help is not an evil act! Whatever gave you that notion? Courage is a virtue, yes, and an old one at that. But so is compassion for life. Being scared of your life is a horrible feeling, and many people just can't overcome fear. That's an inability, the same as handicapped have inabilities. People are not evil because they're scared ******** any more than an injured man is evil for not managing carrying his dying comrade out of harms way. A true evil coward is one who betrays all he hold dare to protect himself from some harm. In ancient times, courage was simply ability in combat, and by today's standards "courageous" men could actually be evil. Today courage has come to mean "persistance in the cause of good". A priest that lied to nazis about jews hiding in the basement would be considered courageous today, even if he would not dare storm enemy's trenches even if given training and a rifle.
aaron3579 03-07-05, 11:03 PM	Selfishness<>evil. Not doing good<>evil. Eating is a selfish act, but is very, very neutral. Eating is not selfish unless taken to the extreme: BoVD, pp 48-49 DEFORMITY (OBESE) [VILE] Through intentional gorging and general gluttony, the character is obese. Grossly overweight, she is now at least triple the normal weight for creatures of her kind. Prerequisite: Willing Deformity. Benefit: The character gains a +2 deformity bonus to Constitution and a -2 deformity penalty to Dexterity. Furthermore, she gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks and saving throws against poison. Special: A character with this feat may not take the Deformity (gaunt) feat. Selfishness is more than a self-serving action. To qualify as such, it has to pass a three-pronged test. 1) The action must help you 2) The action must hurt others 3) The action must be willful (so, no self defense does not count) [certain combonations of 1 and 2 are sufficent to overcome 3.] This is how I define the term. If there is a better word to use for the ideas that I am trying to communicate, give it to me so that our miscommunication can be put behind us. My argument for courage always being good, and cowardice always being evil was ill-conceived and poorly delivered. I should have said this (I won't offer excuses, only corrections): Being too afraid (selfish) to do the right thing is evil. Being brave enough to do the right thing is good. Being too afraid to commit an evil act is not evil in and of itself. Rather the yearning to commit evil is evil. If the only thing that prevents you from committing a crime is fear of prosecution, then you have committed evil already. (This is my Faith talking, not the DMG. Like I have said in the past, I use Christian values to define good and evil in my games, rather than the DMG. It feels more realistic, I find that I can more easily relate to the characters that I play, and it is more fun for us as a group, so :pbbbtt: ) Being brave enough to commit an evil act is not evil in and of itself. Rather it is the commission of said act that is evil. So, in some abstract way, maybe you can see what I meant when I said that courage is good, and cowardice is evil. Again, this is only how my group plays the game. I am not presenting this as an accurate depiction of the core rules, nor am I presenting my way as artistically superior. This post is only meant to be a presentation of how and why I play D&D like I do. Some posters may find my ideas useful, and try them out at home. Others (undoubtedly the majority) will not.
LordSin 03-07-05, 11:16 PM	"Without Evil there can be no Good, so it MUST be Good to be Evil sometimes." :schemes:
Gedrin 03-08-05, 12:13 AM	If you have the power to stop evil, you should. Choosing not to stop an evil, if you have the power to do so, is to allow it to occur. Consent by silence/inaction. So, if you can do it, you should. Example: A child is in danger from a known murderer, but you are a powerful adventurer fully able to save the child. In the above example you have both the obligation and power to prevent the present evil. Failure do prevent the evil could be considered depraved indifference to the life of the innocent child. If you were not a powerful adventurer, and your own life would be in danger from the murderer if you attempted to prevent him from harming the child, D&D alignment would describe this as a neutral choice. It is worth noting that many real world evils have been supported by such neutral choices, but RL and D&D are two different things. The greater the evil, the greater your responsibility to prevent it. The greater your power, the greater your responsiblity to use that power for good. The strong are obligated to protect the weak and innocent.
ShadowDragon8685 03-08-05, 12:28 AM	I have to side with Ehin on this one. Allowing an Evil to go down without bringing the fight to it is, in fact, Evil. "All that is required for Evil to win is for Good men to do Nothing." Benjaman Franklyn said that. I happen to have a deep and seething hatred of anyone who's Neutral on the good-evil scale. Like Ember, for example. If you can just walk by and allow starving children to go on starving, when have you the power to make an immideate and drastic change in their fortunes... Well, yeah. You're not obligated to do so. That's Heartless Neutral. That's as bad a crime as being bat guano freaking insane CE.
Guy Humual 03-08-05, 12:40 PM	If a person stands by and allows an evil act to happen without interfering is that "action" of not interfering (not the person, because we don't know what all else is going on) considered an evil act, a neutral act, or a good act? My personaly position on it is that it is a neutral act, you are not trying to stop evil (non-good) on the same time you are not helping do the evil (non-evil). If the person has no connections to the persons being victimised, or the person perpetrating these evil acts, then I have to agree with you, not doing anything is a neutral act. If the person does have connections to either victim or perp then not getting involved is an evil act. That is my understanding of the alignment system. I think I have to agree with aaron3579 on this side debate, cowardice is a neutral to evil trait, however being a coward doesn't make you neutral or evil, it just means that you'll be more pron to committing neutral or evil acts (i.e. not getting involved, the subject of this thread is an excellent example).
ehrin 03-08-05, 12:49 PM	whoo hooo! SHadowdragon and I agree on something alignment related! I think that's a first! :D
LCD2YOU 03-08-05, 12:50 PM	If a person stands by and allows an evil act to happen without interfering is that "action" of not interfering (not the person, because we don't know what all else is going on) considered an evil act, a neutral act, or a good act? My personaly position on it is that it is a neutral act, you are not trying to stop evil (non-good) on the same time you are not helping do the evil (non-evil). happens when those of good conscience sit back and allow spreadsheets and requests for more data to over run those of us who are actually doing work (with side trips to the DnD boards of course) :devil:
Lord Ian Stark 03-08-05, 01:35 PM	Listen to these Neutral statements (in no exact order) that are in the three Neutral alignment descriptions. "Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way." "A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as a part of a campaign of anarchy." "Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal." "He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect other's freedom." "Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is Lawful Neutral." I can post more but these hit the points addressed above. Everyone has a point of view from there prospective alignment. However the RAW clearly dictates that a neutral character DOES NOT have to interfere in any action if they don't want to. Therefore by the RAW a character taking no action is neutral. Now if you want to "house-rule" that a neutral character that watches evil and does nothing is evil then so be it. That痴 what a "house-rule" is all about. Lets look at this example from the eyes of three different alignments- You are sitting in a dingy bar that obviously serves to the poverty stricken inhabitants of the town. You hear the drunken shouts of a big man that has obviously downed 4 or 5 too many. You happen to know this man as a evil POS that just got out of jail for killing a prostitute. He got out because he "knew the right people." He is attempting to get a prostitute to leave the bar with him but she knows the man has not a coin on him due to his explanation of why he couldn't pay for the last drink. Without further enticing he just picks her up and throws her over his shoulder and heads out the door as she is screaming and kicking to no avail. All of the bar patrons laugh and go back to there business. What would a Good, Neutral or Evil character do by the RAW that observed this? The "good" character would probably get up and head after the drunk to either get him to let her go whether it would be by verbal or physical means. The "neutral" character would care less unless there is something for personal gain he would get out of going after the drunk and his new found prize. The "evil" character would probably stop the good or neutral character from going out the door telling him to mind his business and go sit down. Or he may go after the drunk so HE could spend the night with the prostitute for free if he liked her. He knows he would look like the "hero" to her and use that so he could take advantage of her weak minded state for his own personal pleasure. Are these exactly what these characters would do? No, but they are according to the RAW.
aaron3579 03-08-05, 01:52 PM	The "good" character would probably get up and head after the drunk to either get him to let her go whether it would be by verbal or physical means. The "neutral" character would care less unless there is something for personal gain he would get out of going after the drunk and his new found prize. The "evil" character would probably stop the good or neutral character from going out the door telling him to mind his business and go sit down. Or he may go after the drunk so HE could spend the night with the prostitute for free if he liked her. He knows he would look like the "hero" to her and use that so he could take advantage of her weak minded state for his own personal pleasure. I agree, although in the above scenario, it is very possible for the evil character to act in the exact same way as the neutral character, depending on his mood. This isn't a realistic depiction of good and evil, though. As much as I would have liked it, WoTC didn't heed the words of Benjamin Franklin. So I choose to house rule otherwise. I am beginning to come to a better understanding as to why we play our paladins so differently, Lord Ian Stark. (Assuming that you follow the core rules concerning alignment) if someone detects as evil in your world, then they very likely deserve to die, or at the very least, be imprisoned. It is very likely that your post will cause a bit of a stink, but no matter who wins the ensuing debate, your interpretation of the core rules seems pretty right on. Seriously people, don't be ashamed to admit that your play styles are based on more than the PHB. WoTC is way off base on this one (IMO).
Lord Ian Stark 03-08-05, 02:10 PM	I agree, although in the above scenario, it is very possible for the evil character to act in the exact same way as the neutral character, depending on his mood. Very true. I should have said that the evil character does not have any obligation to do anything in this senario. Actually, as always, the only obligation in this senario is that the good character uphold his views on life to help the innocent woman. This isn't a realistic depiction of good and evil, though. Correct again. However this topic is not asking "if the angel would kill the devil" type of alignment question. It was asking how would a characters action in the view of seeing an evil act happen or about to happen fall under the restrictions of alignment. I am beginning to come to a better understanding as to why we play our paladins so differently, Lord Ian Stark. (Assuming that you follow the core rules concerning alignment) if someone detects as evil in your world, then they very likely deserve to die, or at the very least, be imprisoned. Ah yes, we finally have a good understanding of our characters' motivations. :D
ManinDarkness 03-08-05, 04:31 PM	This is how I define the term. If there is a better word to use for the ideas that I am trying to communicate, give it to me so that our miscommunication can be put behind us. Egoist is a better word for what you're describing: 2: a self-centered person with little regard for others Also, surviving instincts sometimes prevents people from acting. I wouldn't say that they're being evil by not acting in those instances. Survavability is a neutral impulse.
aaron3579 03-08-05, 05:02 PM	Also, surviving instincts sometimes prevents people from acting. I wouldn't say that they're being evil by not acting in those instances. Survivability is a neutral impulse. Like I said, it must be willful, so basic survival, such as eating (for the purpose of honest nutrition) and killing in self defense do not apply (most of the time). Very rarely does the situation arise in which the only way to do the right thing is to risk one's own life (give me 3, and I'll tell you what is required of a non-evil character in my world; this may help you to better understand my position). Even if your only action is to call attention to the evil, then you have fulfilled your obligation to the greater good. If you are the only one present/capable of confronting the evil, then batter up. Buck up, buddy. An extreme example: I don't consider myself evil if I stand by while someone (that I don't know) is being stabbed to death if I am a paraplegic. However, I would consider myself evil if I sat there and did nothing. A call for help should be enough in this situation. So the murderer turns to me and says "If you don't shut up, I'll gut you like a fish." In my world: I cheer him on and taunt the victim, and praise Demogorgon: VILE I cheer him on: VILE I shut up: EVIL I shut up with the intention of memorizing his face to describe to authorities: GOOD, depending on the circumstances. I continue to scream(willingly risking my life for someone I don't know): GOOD He puts a gag in my mouth and tortures me; I shut up as a result: NEUTRAL; neutral actions still exist, such as shaving one's face, putting on one's shoes, and having a beer, they just have no effect on alignment. (however, forcing him to resort to torture is good.) I convert the bad guy: GOOD/EXALTED (it's close) I Take the torture and scream anyway (CON check or something): EXALTED BUT, by the rules: I cheer him on and taunt the victim, and praise Demogorgon: VILE I cheer him on: EVIL I shut up: NEUTRAL I shut up with the intention of memorizing his face to describe to authorities: GOOD I continue to scream (willingly risking my life for someone I don't know): EXALTED He puts a gag in my mouth and tortures me; I shut up as a result: NEAUTRAL (however, forcing him to resort to torture may be considered good or even exalted). I convert the bad guy: EXALTED I take the torture and scream anyway (CON check or something): EXALTED As I have already stated: there is a difference between unwillingness to help and inability to help.
ManinDarkness 03-08-05, 05:39 PM	I shut up with the intention of memorizing his face to describe to authorities: GOOD I continue to scream: EXALTEDDo not quite agree on what the core says on those. I would say the first is still neutral, as it is passive (and turning him to the authorities later is another action), and the second just good. Convert him would be exalted, but very nearly suicidal.
aaron3579 03-08-05, 05:43 PM	Convert him would be exalted, but very nearly suicidal. Oh, good point, I will edit this in.
pres_man 03-10-05, 03:33 PM	I have noticed that certain people are making the alignment situation based on conditions. Such as: can you stop the evil act safely do you know the person(s) involved your alignment to name a few. Would it make any difference if the situation was somehow such that the person's choices were either to allow an evil act to occur or to do an evil act themselves. Would that somehow change how you felt the allowing of an evil act should be viewed? I'm not going to come up with a situation that this would happen, because I don't want to focus on the situation, I just want to know how you feel about not stopping evil, is it evil or neutral (or even in some warped way good)?
Drachasor 03-10-05, 03:53 PM	Listen to these Neutral statements (in no exact order) that are in the three Neutral alignment descriptions. "Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way." "A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as a part of a campaign of anarchy." "Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal." "He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect other's freedom." "Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is Lawful Neutral." I can post more but these hit the points addressed above. Everyone has a point of view from there prospective alignment. However the RAW clearly dictates that a neutral character DOES NOT have to interfere in any action if they don't want to. Therefore by the RAW a character taking no action is neutral. Now if you want to "house-rule" that a neutral character that watches evil and does nothing is evil then so be it. That痴 what a "house-rule" is all about. Lets look at this example from the eyes of three different alignments- You are sitting in a dingy bar that obviously serves to the poverty stricken inhabitants of the town. You hear the drunken shouts of a big man that has obviously downed 4 or 5 too many. You happen to know this man as a evil POS that just got out of jail for killing a prostitute. He got out because he "knew the right people." He is attempting to get a prostitute to leave the bar with him but she knows the man has not a coin on him due to his explanation of why he couldn't pay for the last drink. Without further enticing he just picks her up and throws her over his shoulder and heads out the door as she is screaming and kicking to no avail. All of the bar patrons laugh and go back to there business. What would a Good, Neutral or Evil character do by the RAW that observed this? The "good" character would probably get up and head after the drunk to either get him to let her go whether it would be by verbal or physical means. The "neutral" character would care less unless there is something for personal gain he would get out of going after the drunk and his new found prize. The "evil" character would probably stop the good or neutral character from going out the door telling him to mind his business and go sit down. Or he may go after the drunk so HE could spend the night with the prostitute for free if he liked her. He knows he would look like the "hero" to her and use that so he could take advantage of her weak minded state for his own personal pleasure. Are these exactly what these characters would do? No, but they are according to the RAW. Stepping in can easily be neutral in the situation provided. a Lawful Neutral character would almost be mandated to step in. Inhabitants of the town could easily step in for the good of the town (good in a very concrete and personal way, which is within the realm of neutrality). Also, remember that Neutral characters *do* have a respect for life, generally speaking. It is evil ones that don't care at all. A neutral character might very well go to the authorities in this scenerio. Or a neutral could get involved to stop such disorderly and vile behavior because they don't want it in their town or around them. However, such a person wouldn't go around looking for wrongs to right, or hearing of a wrong elsewhere seek to go there, nor would they be big on paying taxes to fund a war to help those in need (or to just help those in need elsewhere). Of course, the more powerful the neutral character relative to the killer/bully, the more he has to get involved, since he makes less and less of a personal sacrifice. Honestly though, imho, in a town with a decent guard/sheriff, a neutral character would go or have someone go and get such a person. It is at no personal sacrifice to them and it keeps the town safer and better. Not doing so is evil, even if having such tendencies isn't enough to move you over to the evil alignment. In a town with evil authorities, a neutral character could do nothing if he was weak and it wouldn't evil. -Drachasor
eRaz0r 03-10-05, 04:07 PM	I did. Cowardice itself is evil. It is self-centered and it does not serve the greater good. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. We're not interested in your opinions about real life - we're interested in where you think the act falls within the alignment guidelines in the rules. Since you've already admitted that the alignments in DnD don't reflect your own personal philosophy about life, and you house rule them away in your game, then any further explanation of your house rule is irrelevant. Under the PHB section on Alignment, this is a neutral act.
zahnb 03-10-05, 04:15 PM	Well, according to the rules, most Germans and nazi's would be neutral. "Golly, I don't like that they are sending people away, but oh well!" neutral my ass... What scares me are the people on the board who say "it's a neutral act", but don't justify it with the rules, it seemed like a personal opinion. Although, I have seen alot of gamers with social "issues/problems" and I hope I that is the cause. Listen, the good people "in a D&D society" would kill all the neutrals first, they are the true threat. You never know where they stand from day to day.
eRaz0r 03-10-05, 04:16 PM	Stepping in can easily be neutral in the situation provided. a Lawful Neutral character would almost be mandated to step in. Inhabitants of the town could easily step in for the good of the town (good in a very concrete and personal way, which is within the realm of neutrality). Also, remember that Neutral characters *do* have a respect for life, generally speaking. It is evil ones that don't care at all. A neutral character might very well go to the authorities in this scenerio. Or a neutral could get involved to stop such disorderly and vile behavior because they don't want it in their town or around them. However, such a person wouldn't go around looking for wrongs to right, or hearing of a wrong elsewhere seek to go there, nor would they be big on paying taxes to fund a war to help those in need (or to just help those in need elsewhere). Of course, the more powerful the neutral character relative to the killer/bully, the more he has to get involved, since he makes less and less of a personal sacrifice. Honestly though, imho, in a town with a decent guard/sheriff, a neutral character would go or have someone go and get such a person. It is at no personal sacrifice to them and it keeps the town safer and better. Not doing so is evil, even if having such tendencies isn't enough to move you over to the evil alignment. In a town with evil authorities, a neutral character could do nothing if he was weak and it wouldn't evil. -Drachasor You've described a few situations where you could *justify* an action by a Neutral character. But none that *mandate* such an action. Inaction is still within a Neutral characters purview in this instance. There's no impetus to require a neutral character, no matter how powerful, to intervene here. Even if the neutral character sacrifices or risks nothing by acting, he is still not required to do so to remain true to his alignment. Even a LN person need not go to the authorities. The Lawful part of their alignment could be a personal code that requires strict discipline (such as a monks asceticism) and have nothing to do with legal authority.
ManinDarkness 03-10-05, 04:16 PM	Stepping in can easily be neutral in the situation provided.Yep, not acting is not the only neutral action available. It is at no personal sacrifice to them and it keeps the town safer and better.And their time doesn't count? :D Well, the bottom line is: I'm more cynic as to what a neutral character does, and, in a way, you think they still go to heaven.
aaron3579 03-10-05, 04:32 PM	FROM POST #40 We're not interested in your opinions about real life - we're interested in where you think the act falls within the alignment guidelines in the rules. Since you've already admitted that the alignments in DnD don't reflect your own personal philosophy about life, and you house rule them away in your game, then any further explanation of your house rule is irrelevant. Under the PHB section on Alignment, this is a neutral act. FROM POST #24 Again, this is only how my group plays the game. I am not presenting this as an accurate depiction of the core rules, nor am I presenting my way as artistically superior. This post is only meant to be a presentation of how and why I play D&D like I do. Some posters may find my ideas useful, and try them out at home. Others (undoubtedly the majority) will not. FROM POST #35 An extreme example: I don't consider myself evil if I stand by while someone (that I don't know) is being stabbed to death if I am a paraplegic. However, I would consider myself evil if I sat there and did nothing. A call for help should be enough in this situation. So the murderer turns to me and says "If you don't shut up, I'll gut you like a fish." In my world: I cheer him on and taunt the victim, and praise Demogorgon: VILE I cheer him on: VILE I shut up: EVIL I shut up with the intention of memorizing his face to describe to authorities: GOOD, depending on the circumstances. I continue to scream(willingly risking my life for someone I don't know): GOOD He puts a gag in my mouth and tortures me; I shut up as a result: NEUTRAL; neutral actions still exist, such as shaving one's face, putting on one's shoes, and having a beer, they just have no effect on alignment. (However, forcing him to resort to torture is good.) I convert the bad guy: GOOD/EXALTED (it's close) I Take the torture and scream anyway (CON check or something): EXALTED BUT, by the rules: I cheer him on and taunt the victim, and praise Demogorgon: VILE I cheer him on: EVIL I shut up: NEUTRAL I shut up with the intention of memorizing his face to describe to authorities: GOOD I continue to scream (willingly risking my life for someone I don't know): EXALTED He puts a gag in my mouth and tortures me; I shut up as a result: NEUTRAL (however, forcing him to resort to torture may be considered good or even exalted). I convert the bad guy: EXALTED I take the torture and scream anyway (CON check or something): EXALTED As I have already stated: there is a difference between unwillingness to help and inability to help. Do you have something to contribute to this discussion, or are you just trying to incite a flame-war? We're not interested in your opinions about real life - we're interested in where you think the act falls within the alignment guidelines in the rules. I've made it quite clear that in my opinion the rules consider this a neutral act. I'm just trying to offer a different perspective. If it is unappreciated by everyone else here, I will apologize and leave. However, if the majority does not harbor a hatred for the free exchange of ideas, I am afraid that you are in the wrong.
eRaz0r 03-10-05, 05:42 PM	Sorry, Aaron, if I sounded gruff. No personal attack was intended. I certainly bear you no ill will, and, in fact, I thought I was being particuarly *impersonal*. The simple, unadorned, unemotional fact of the matter is, you've stated what the rules say. You've also muddied the discussion with your own irrelevant ideas. That's ok. If you'd like to get into a philosophical discussion about good and evil as you see it, I won't stop you. But it's still irrelevant to the question. As for my opinions on whether the rules adequately reflect the panacea of human thoughts and emotions... they don't. 9 pidgeon-holes for every spectrum of human action and reaction, thought and fear? Sorry, it doesn't even come close. Good and evil ? I'm glad you've got your polarized sunglasses on where everything comes through as black or white. Me? I see in colour
eRaz0r 03-10-05, 05:55 PM	Well, according to the rules, most Germans and nazi's would be neutral. "Golly, I don't like that they are sending people away, but oh well!" neutral my ass... What scares me are the people on the board who say "it's a neutral act", but don't justify it with the rules, it seemed like a personal opinion. Although, I have seen alot of gamers with social "issues/problems" and I hope I that is the cause. Listen, the good people "in a D&D society" would kill all the neutrals first, they are the true threat. You never know where they stand from day to day. Bah - this gets my goat. Read the rules again and come back with a reason why it's evil then. Justify it to us. Yes, those Germans during WWII who were not actively involved with the Holocaust were neutral. They certainly weren't good, but if they never did any direct harm, (we're not talking about the officers in the concentration camps here) they weren't evil either. I'm sorry if this is offensive to you. I'm sure we'd all like to paint every German alive during WWII as evil - it would make everything much easier - but the sheer reality of it is that people aren't as easily branded as all that. Or we're just as guilty as the Nazis of racism and hatred. Oh, and if you haven't heard this before, most people on USENET are aware of the unwritten rule of Internet Debating... if you have to mention the Nazi's you've already lost. :) As for your 'never know where they stand' comment - I disagree. The average person is Neutral, not good. You know exactly how they stand. People are predictable, and most of them don't go out of their way to help you unless they know you. They also don't go out of their way to hurt you either. Absolutely neutral.
Kast 03-10-05, 05:58 PM	Since you can never really know the consequences of interfering with an event, any sort of conscious interference could be construed as evil. By interfering you are saying your own judgement is superior to all others including those thought of as omniscient such as deities. This is a highly selfish act.
aaron3579 03-10-05, 06:04 PM	[Sends PM to eRaz0r] :)
ManinDarkness 03-10-05, 06:08 PM	Since you can never really know the consequences of interfering with an event, any sort of conscious interference could be construed as evil. By interfering you are saying your own judgement is superior to all others including those thought of as omniscient such as deities. This is a highly selfish act.Selfishness is neutral, egoism is evil. Also, we must act between our limits. Common sense says that interfering in some actions leeds to good results, so interfering could be good, and so a good character should act. Deities may be omniscient, but in D&D terms, they are frequently not omnipotent. Also, deities may value more free-will than goodness.
Andrew_980 03-10-05, 09:48 PM	a good character would have to help if they are witnessing the event. part of good is a willingness to sacrifice for others, risking your life to save others.I think inaction could eventuallly cause a shift to N A neutral guy could avoid the situation to protect himself, but if a direct witness would at least feel some guilt about it most of the time.not acting would not make him shift unless he is refusing to stop something truely heinous or could easily step in with no threat. Evil by inaction is something i strongly beleive in and i beileive the biggest downfall of the paladin and exalted. if they can do something and don't, they share the guilt.
LCD2YOU 03-10-05, 10:35 PM	a good character would have to help if they are witnessing the event. part of good is a willingness to sacrifice for others, risking your life to save others.I think inaction could eventuallly cause a shift to N A good character who is in a dive bar has a few questions to answer first. The biggest and most to the point question is, "Why were you slumming?" The answers are: 1: They are trying to go cheap, they're low level. Sounds like taking on a 5th level character, 2nd level Warrior - 3 level thug, would be fatal. Good is not stupid. 2: They were on a mission to infiltrate some really powerful and nasty organization. Think "Nightmasks" ala Waterdeep. If they interfere, they could expose themselves and others who are helping them. The Nightmasks come in and a great deal more evil is committed by the vampires. Of course their are RP ways to handle it, but some might object and call the players who do the acts "evil". 3: They were converting people. 4: They were new to the area and acted on instinct. Only the good of 3: and 4: have the impetus to go and act. The characters of #4 have the chance of getting on someone's bad side or not knowing what is really going on. What happens if the "bad guy" isn't? He's rescuing a girl he knows from the streets (his "rep" is all a lie) and get her out of the area. But they drop the guy, after all they all KNOW the guy is evil, like a bad habit and "rescue" the girl so she can go back to her pimp. Believe me, I'll mindf--k the characters like this for being too quick to judge. A neutral guy could avoid the situation to protect himself, but if a direct witness would at least feel some guilt about it most of the time.not acting would not make him shift unless he is refusing to stop something truely heinous or could easily step in with no threat. Only if the characters know the whole story. If the "girl" is the guys ex girlfriend, he taking her back. If you play in a Tolkien mediveal world with 21st century morality, then he's wrong. If you apply 13th century morality, he's actually being "good" taking her away. That assumes nobody knows the whole story. Evil by inaction is something i strongly beleive in and i beileive the biggest downfall of the paladin and exalted. if they can do something and don't, they share the guilt. Knee jerk reactions are also the downfall of good paladins and exhalted types.
snowlynx 03-11-05, 10:37 AM	I think the alignment depends on the situation and how much the character knows. Mostly, it is neutral. If you calmly stand by and watch someone commit a truly evil act because the action helps you out in some way, because the action is in line with your morals, or because you like seeing blood on the floor, it becomes an evil act. I find it funny (and accurate) that in that case with the convict dragging the lady out of the bar, the evil and the good character may possibly act the same way (valiantly saving the girl). I think this shows that in many ways it is tendency toward action that defines lawful, good, evil, and chaotic (therefore suggesting that inaction is usually a neutral act.)
aaron3579 03-11-05, 11:21 AM	So the action is neutral. Ok I got that. What I don't get is this: How is it that, by the rules, a character could ever be 'shifted towards neutral?' Consider this: typically, eating is neutral. Putting on one's shoes is neutral. Getting out of bed is neutral. Do these actions shift a character's alignment towards neutral? If we think of alignment like this Ph level that WoTC presents us with, we run into some serious problems. If you equate breathing and eating to neutrality, just as you do other neutral actions, then why do paladins not fall for getting up in the morning? Does it work like this: For a good character to move towards neutral, he must commit evil? I don't think it does. I get the impression that when a good character commits evil, he is giving neutrality a miss and heading straight for evil. Surely everyone can see where this slippery slope leads us. I am at work right now and I don't really have time to fully express all of the thoughts bouncing around in my head. If there is anyone that understands where I am coming from, I would be obliged if you would give a little more insight into what I am trying to say...
pres_man 03-11-05, 12:46 PM	Good characters do: 1)as many good acts as they can, 2)lots of neutral acts (such as eating, breathing, etc), and 3)almost no evil acts. Neutral characters do : 1)almost no good acts, 2)lots of neutral acts, and 3) almost no evil acts. Evil characters do : 1) almost no good acts, 2)lots of neutral acts, and 3)as many evil acts as they can get away with (generally speaking, of course not all evil characters are evil stupid).
snowlynx 03-11-05, 02:54 PM	I think a good character is shifting toward neutral when he gives up his quest to do good or begins to give it up (getting burned out, don't have time for this nonsense any more, or more monsters will come anyway, so what's the point? Or wants to retire in the middle of some great catastophe, simply because he's got enough money to live well for the rest of his life, and doesn't care about evil anymore.) An evil character is shifting toward neutral when....hrm. When their attitude starts to look more like the descriptions in the neutral categories. Since both evil and neutral individuals are allowed to be selfish, it's sort of hard to determine exactly where the changing point is. Perhaps they lose the sadistic qualities evil sometimes has, or seek redemption of a sort but are unwilling to suddenly change their ways. Maybe they spare a (neutral) enemy they would have normally killed.
ManinDarkness 03-11-05, 03:27 PM	If you equate breathing and eating to neutrality, just as you do other neutral actions, then why do paladins not fall for getting up in the morning?Because they fall if they commit evil acts. ;) To me, it is preference. When confronted with situations where multiple choices are available, good characters prefer to do good actions an so on. When it is time of alignment change (which I do seldom), it is because the character has consistently forgone choices that would be preferred by his alignment. In resume, a good character becomes neutral when he stops doing good things when able. Just one time is not enough.