Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Daemongar 12-10-03, 01:48 AM	I recently got in a fight with my DM over the true nature of Neutral with my Neutral Cleric. My DM seems to think that Neutral implies not taking a side in things - self interest over the greater good or evil. He essentially believes that *any* evil act is the sign of an evil character, but doesn't have a problem with good acts. This might be more of his own *personal* beliefs seeping into the game - not sure. I try to play the Char with an idea that Neutral is doing some good, and some evil and striving for a balance. Free will, but in the back of my mind keeping tabs on the Chars ventures and trying to balance it out. I lean this way because, to be honest, it's more fun to have options - and I like a touch of evil now and again. Not a big deal and I'm sorry if this has been beaten to death. If the DM has a problem with characters performing evil acts - I can respect that - that might not be the kind of party he wants, but I was wondering what others thought on this subject.
anshar 12-10-03, 08:47 AM	After all, alignment is a guideline, not a single definition of how a character acts. Instead of asking 'would a neutral character do this?' Turn the question around and ask "What alignment would a character be who did this." When I ask myself that question with your situation in mind I come to this conclusion: A person who tries not to take sides as in your description of your DM's view is Neutral. A character who does a little bit of good and a little bit of evil and strives for balance overall is also neutral. The crux of the matter is what kind of neutral the character is. In the case of your DM's point of view, I would suggest that true neutral is the most fitting alignment. In your case, I would lean towards chaotic neutral. Both neutral, but that's why we have two axes for alignment. :)
Naeron 12-10-03, 10:41 AM	In 3.0/3.5 there are 2 definitions of Neutral (ok 3 if you count animals). From the 3.5 SRD " Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them." Your character seems to be the "Balance Neutral" alignment rather than the "uncomitted Neutral" alignment. But by the rules that is Neutral.
JusticeZero 12-10-03, 10:49 AM	I side completely with your GM. As far as the form of psychopathic behavior that is 'active neutrality', the saying 'Add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage - you get sewage. Add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine - you get sewage' is pretty accurate. By attempting to 'strive toward balance', you are egotistically putting your own beliefs ahead of others' lives in importance, and inflicting them in what might be considered a very capricious and unpredictable fashion.
Millennium 12-10-03, 11:47 AM	This kind of behavior is more LN than N, given that you're actively keeping tabs on your behavior.
Tonus 12-10-03, 12:44 PM	Neutral behavior is doing *neither* active good nor active evil. Doing *both* active good and active evil is simply psychotic -- which is not an alignment.
Arindor 12-10-03, 01:34 PM	I rarely bother even keeping track of alignment unless a specific situation occurs that it matters and at that point I evaluate my character based on the way I have been playing him. It's like "Hmn I started out as Lawful Neutral but I guess when that lord pushed me too far and I wiped out his village that was kinda evil so I guess that paladin detects evil on me. If I survive this encounter I might feel bad so I'll see if I can find homes for all those orphans." Except for classes where alignment matters my opinion is life is to short to be evaluating every action your character is going to take and measure it against some briefly worded moral commentary. Play the character how you want and enjoy the game. And just a point in fact: I have been playing the same character for a year and a half now and do you know how many times a situation came up that I had to look at my alignment entry? Zero! I actually had to go and look at my character sheet to see what I originally wrote down as I was writing this response.
PhaedrusXY 12-10-03, 01:48 PM	Originally posted by Tonus Neutral behavior is doing *neither* active good nor active evil. Doing *both* active good and active evil is simply psychotic -- which is not an alignment. 100% incorrect. If this were true, then it would be impossible to maintain a true neutral alignment. On the contrary, true neutral is arguably the most common alignment of the average Joe on the street. This topic has been discussed in great detail before. There was an excellent thread on it just a couple of weeks ago. I'll see if I can find it. You could try doing a search, also. Edit: HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133289&highlight=true+AND+neutral+AND+alignment ) is the thread I was thinking of.
TKEdoc225 12-10-03, 02:02 PM	Lawful neutral can be two things... 1)Following laws and not worrying whther they are good or evil, and not worrying about balancing them out, as you don't make the rules, you just follow them. 2) following a strict personal ethos to not do anything good or evil. You alwaya maintain the middle ground, by using logic or gut feelings, but never because it's the good or evil thing to do. (this would be your DM's take on Neutral. Chaotic Neutral can be a couple of things as well... 1) Disobeying the laws, regardless of whther they are good or evil, and working to spread anarchy everywhere you go. 2) someone who is neutral saying, "you know, if i do both good and evil acts, and the balance out, then i'm still neutral." you can jump all over the spectrum of good and evil, as long as you do both in "relatively" equal portions, you stay neutral. This would be your take on neutral. Neutral... this is the most difficult alignment to play. We simplify it in our group as this: Neutral characters are just that neutral.. they use logic and reasoning, yet can still be mislead by emotions. The most common motivations for neutral characters are what is best for themselves and their group, but that doesn't necessarily set anyone else back. They will hinder and harm others, if they are in their way, but will also seek ways around it. Survival is also an important factor. Again, this is how my group defines these alignments.. except for one of us.... but we won't go there.
Bunga 12-10-03, 04:24 PM	A neutral character who does both good and evil acts about as often and ismainly out for himself or for some abstract "balance" is certainly neutral. "Oh the orphanage is on fire? Hmm, I'll go put it out but only if you stop interupting my work in future." "Is that the Kings crown? No, I don't care how you got it, just give it to me now."
Daemongar 12-10-03, 05:11 PM	Originally posted by Tonus Neutral behavior is doing *neither* active good nor active evil. Doing *both* active good and active evil is simply psychotic -- which is not an alignment. Tried posting this before but stupid cookies problem seemed to have interupted my service.. oy! The point is that you can do good and evil both to achieve an objective, and that there is an underlying rhythm to ones actions, equating to neither benefiting nor harming the land. The crux of my alignment woes be as follows: A human prisoner is taken. Of crimes leading to the deaths of others it is certain. My neutral cleric asks the rest of the party to remove themselves while I question the prisoner. After the goodnicks and lawfuls of the party leave, I immediately murder the foul fiend so he knows I mean business. Once I figure he's had enough, through kindness and mercy devine, I raise hime from the dead to dance among the living once more. Then I proceed to question him. I believe this is where one would use the term "Machiavellian" but modesty prohibits me. The point is, my DM believes the cleric should remove himself from the situation - not playing an active role at all - but wouldn't indifference be another form of evil? Those who turn a blind eye to injustice, etc. Ah well, never thought it would be a hard alignment to play...
Thorak 12-10-03, 08:27 PM	The reason the 'balance' view of neutrality is flawed is that it leads to psychotic behaviour. In the "I just founded a new free orphanage, so I can now go out and kill an equal number of children as I will have saved" kind of way. Good and evil acts don't cancel out, they mean the character is trying to be both good AND evil, and that's neurotic. Neutral's either a lack of commitment either way, or an attempt to walk the line between good and evil, in a "I walk a dark path, and have to constantly control my darker urges to keep from slipping into the abyss" kind of way. Though that's only one possible interpretation of 'walking the line'. For instance, Batman would be Lawful Neutral. He wants to punish and hurt the criminals who killed his family. He also realizes that this would make him as bad as they are. So, he treads a fine line, wreaking vigilante justice while fighting his urges to kill those he tracks down. This is the original view of batman, one they captured perfectly in the Batman Beyond cartoon. I don't watch it, but I recall one episode I saw where Bruce Wayne was screaming at the new Batman to kill the badguy, and Batman was yelling back about how wrong it would be. Here, Bruce had tipped right over into lawful evil, but thankfully the new Batman was closer to Lawful Good.
Tonus 12-10-03, 08:40 PM	Originally posted by PhaedrusXY 100% incorrect. If this were true, then it would be impossible to maintain a true neutral alignment. On the contrary, true neutral is arguably the most common alignment of the average Joe on the street. Err, what exactly is your objection? It seems to me we are in agreement of what the average Joe on the street is all about. He isn't going to run into a burning house to save a puppy, he isn't going to rob a bank, and he most certainly isn't going to run into a burning house to save a puppy and then go rob a bank.
Lady Mia 12-11-03, 03:21 AM	If a player of mine was deliberately doing evil and good acts in the name of balance. I would penalize him for poor rolepleying and treat his alignment as CE. Balance basically means avoiding any evil acts while at the same time not volunteering for any good thing either. There is only one definition of neutral. a person who avoids being evil but lacks the selflessness nessessary for good. Its a pretty broad catagory but its always easier to slip into evil. Evil and Chaos are the easiest alignments. They grant total freedom of actions. Kill if you want. Break laws if you feel like it. Anything goes. An evil person often thinks he is neutral. You don't have to be a total sociopath to follow that path. Even an evil person can act in someone elses best interests if he wants to. In the examples given the character described is evil. The first one where you slaughter an entire village because your lord 'pushed you too far' is a purely evil act. At the point you commited that act you proved your characters true alignment is evil. Evil people will commit any horrible act if they feel the end justifies the means. The fact that you spared a few innocents and turned them over to an orphanage only proves that your also not Lawfull. That PC was either NE or CE. Why? Because a Lawfull person acts in a consistant manner, by the rules. If all the other innocet people of the village deserved death by the characters logic then sparing some children would be rather chaotic behavior. Whether the PC was NE or CE would depend largely on his reasons for sparing those kids. If it was because he was trying to avoid killing kids then NE. If he just felt like sparing those kids on a case by case basis then CE is his alignment. In the second example... torturing a man to get info. Yes thats what killing and then attempting to raise him is. You also are evil as your willing to act in an evil fashion reguardless of the reasons. ALSO if any other PC turned his back and looked the other way while you did these acts I would lower them immediately to Neutral if they were Good. It is characteristic of Neutral to refuse to commit an act of evil themselves. But also turn a blind eye and not object if they see evil done. Lawfull Evil people CAN torture if there is a valid reason for doing so. Such as extracting information. The hardest path to follow is the path of good. Why? Because most people don't act with that level of selflessness.
Naeron 12-11-03, 05:18 AM	Originally posted by Lady Mia If a player of mine was deliberately doing evil and good acts in the name of balance. I would penalize him for poor rolepleying and treat his alignment as CE. Balance basically means avoiding any evil acts while at the same time not volunteering for any good thing either. <snip>. What you are proposing is not a commitment to a balanced view it is just simple inactivity. Balance Neutral accepts that sometimes you must do evil and sometimes you must do good because the goal is that the world be balanced, it is the real embodiment that the end justifies the means when the end is that the world be in balance. However it is one of the hardest alignments to play which is why the PC should change to selfish neutral - that allows him to to evil acts and good acts if the reason behind it is neutral.
Lady Mia 12-11-03, 07:08 AM	Originally posted by Naeron What you are proposing is not a commitment to a balanced view it is just simple inactivity. Balance Neutral accepts that sometimes you must do evil and sometimes you must do good because the goal is that the world be balanced, it is the real embodiment that the end justifies the means when the end is that the world be in balance. However it is one of the hardest alignments to play which is why the PC should change to selfish neutral - that allows him to to evil acts and good acts if the reason behind it is neutral. No perhaps I wordered it poorly or your simply not understanding. You sound like your proposing the kind of insanity old AD&D druids had to pretend to follow. You have to do good and evil in balance. The newer editions have realized that that is insane. So the new definition of persuing balance is actively AVIODING extremes like blatantly good or evil acts. They actively seek to behave in a moderate way not doing evil and not doing good. This doen't mean you have to do nothing. Any act that isn't expressly evil, like the slaughter of innocents, or expressly good, like donating your rewards to charity, is neutral. You can do a lot of stuff without crossing either line. Neutral characters are easy to play if you know where the lines are. For example: Rescuing a princess for a reward is neutral. An Actively Neutral (balance) character would require a reward or the promise of one before attempting to rescue her. A good PC would do it out of the kindness of her heart, if they reward her afterward thats cool, but she would do it even if there was no reward. An evil PC could rescue her... but its more likely he would try to use the whole situation to his advantage. Perhaps even randsoming her back himself. Hey anythings fair for evils. again in the examples the actions were blatanly evil (the slaughter of a whole village, or the torture of a captive) and such actions would never be willingly commited by a Neutral PC.
NeutralNeutral 12-11-03, 07:49 AM	thou shalt not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive
JusticeZero 12-11-03, 07:53 PM	Neutral really isn't that hard to understand. You're like an animal. You're rather self-centered. Your concern is more toward what's good for you. But on the other hand, you keep your head down. You still emphathise with others, and you don't really try to injure the others around you. You're not altruistic, but you're not a sociopath either. "What..? no, I think i'll keep the money for myself, instead of donating it to charity. What..? You want me to burn down an orphanage? That would be awful! I can't do that. Hey, I found a money pouch on the ground. Not worth worrying over, let's see what we've got here. Hmm... the key to the door of Granny Ceilidh's shop... nah, it's too much trouble and what if I got caught? Besides, I -like- her pies."
The White Sorcerer 12-11-03, 09:44 PM	Here's how I see the Good—Evil axis: Good: Preservation of others at the expense of self. Neutral: Preservation of self at the expense of self OR preservation of others at the expense of others. Evil: Preservation of self at the expense of others. That's just the basics, really.
Millennium 12-12-03, 10:13 AM	Originally posted by Daemongar [B]A human prisoner is taken. Of crimes leading to the deaths of others it is certain. My neutral cleric asks the rest of the party to remove themselves while I question the prisoner. After the goodnicks and lawfuls of the party leave, I immediately murder the foul fiend so he knows I mean business. Once I figure he's had enough, through kindness and mercy devine, I raise hime from the dead to dance among the living once more. Then I proceed to question him.[/n] And your prisoner, knowing that the guy who just killed him is now trying to resurrect him, agreed to be brought back to life? Frankly, I think your DM was being a little overly permissive in allowing you to resurrect the guy. I know I wouldn't want to be brought back by someone who had just killed me; they'd probably just want to kill me again. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define a new term: "strong-neutral". I define this as "a True Neutral character who is actively committed to preserving The Balance." A strong-neutral character capable of raising the dead probably wouldn't simply murder the prisoner outright, "just to show him I mean business". This has nothing to do with "balance"; it simply makes no sense, because the guy probably isn't going to want to be resurrected by you. A strong-neutral would probably start with gentler methods of questioning, working his way up the scale of severity as needed. What differentiates a neutral from a good character is that a good character will usually stop short of torture, while a neutral character would use torture if he had to. Incidentally, a strong-neutral character would probably not keep active tabs on his behavior. Like the PHB says, "True Neutral is the best alignment you can be because you act naturally"; even a strong-neutral would do this. A strong-neutral's own behavior matters surprisingly little, as long as The Balance -which is external to any person, including a strong-neutral- is preserved. A strong-neutral who keeps strict tabs on his own behavior, as your character does, has turned the idea of balance into a personal code; that is a Lawful thing to do. I believe this is where one would use the term "Machiavellian" but modesty prohibits me. If you try and classify Machiavelli in the D&D alignment system, he comes out as practically the archetype of Lawful Evil. The point is, my DM believes the cleric should remove himself from the situation - not playing an active role at all - but wouldn't indifference be another form of evil? Indeed it would. A neutral would go with the flow, participating in the questioning and doing what he thinks is necessary, neither removing himself nor running the whole show unless there was no one else running it, and probably not objecting to any methods used (unless they seemed excessive). Those who turn a blind eye to injustice, etc. Ah well, never thought it would be a hard alignment to play... That's one of the fun things about the D&D alignment system; playing any of the alignments in a way that's both believeable and consistent with the alignment is actually quite difficult. This can be taken as a fun challenge, or a lesson that no one fits the archetypes perfectly.
Bopple 12-12-03, 10:35 AM	I think I have to agree to the opinion that good acts don't cancel evil acts. Let's say... A group of neutral people, who have the philosophy that everything should be in balance. Then they would crusade against the good today, then against the evil tomorrow? I don't think so.
youspoonybard 12-12-03, 11:00 AM	Bopple: Curious. Why not? "Leave us be!" could be their rallying cry.
Bopple 12-12-03, 11:15 AM	Perhaps it is not possible to reduce the same amount of both? Perhaps, while it is already balanced out, why do they have to do something drastic which is merely reducing both sides? Which also breaks the balance of the universe by making neutrality dominant?
Daemongar 12-12-03, 11:16 AM	Originally posted by Millennium That's one of the fun things about the D&D alignment system; playing any of the alignments in a way that's both believeable and consistent with the alignment is actually quite difficult. This can be taken as a fun challenge, or a lesson that no one fits the archetypes perfectly. All kidding aside, thanks everyone for all the well thought out responses - I think this is the first time in a while I played an alignment that is a little contrary to my personal ethos and there is some friction on it's implementaton... I might just tell the DM I feel the need to change to CG or CN to prevent arguments like this in the future.
youspoonybard 12-12-03, 11:28 AM	Originally posted by Bopple Perhaps it is not possible to reduce the same amount of both? Perhaps, while it is already balanced out, why do they have to do something drastic which is merely reducing both sides? Which also breaks the balance of the universe by making neutrality dominant? That's very campaign specific. I doubt that many campaigns have "balanced out" settings between good and evil...and if they did, then I could see TN characters going against good or evil parties to preserve this balance. After all, it's the good or evil party that is "doing something drastic", which is not likely to be "reducing both sides [equally]". And if good characters want to see good be the dominant trait, and evil characters evil, why can't neutral characters what neutrality to be a dominant trait?
Bopple 12-12-03, 11:47 AM	I don't want to be specific over the ambiguity of alignment but... Philosophical neutrals would ally with the good to defeat the evil, but not likely with the evil to oppose the good, imo. That's because they are likely to know from experiences and knowledge, when the situation favors the evil, the evils tend to break the balance rather than just staying satisfied. Then the situation would be even more unbalancing due to their intervention. And another factor is, they have to ponder upon something unpredictable. If they should do something drastic, that might incur even more unbalancing events due to that action. As for dominance of neutrality, I think, if they truly want the balance of the universe, they would want the balance of three, not dominance of neutrality. Though, it is arguable which is more balancing - only neutrality or balanced triad. But imo, the latter is the nature of the universe.
Maraxus 12-13-03, 03:18 PM	This are very complex questions. Here is my view on it: Someone who thinks, he is allowed to do evil when doing good in return is evil. Someone who sometimes does evil, because he has a weak character (the philosofical meaning), than has a guilty conscience and does enought good is neutral. It's a matter of motivation. Saying "I must do something evil, because I did some good yesturday, and the world must be balanced." is either the lie of an evil person, or psychotic.
FiendishLibrarian 12-14-03, 07:50 PM	Bleh. This is why I don't like the alignment system, it pigeonholes characters into artificial categories that people treat as concrete game mechanics. It's often pointed out that these are supposed to be regarded as guidlines instead of hard and fast rules but GM's and Players alike still come up with their own inflexible visions of what each alignment means and try to impose them on the game world. I mean realisticly speaking how many people do you know dedicate themselves to a philosophy of neutrality, trying to balance their actions to maintain some middle ground between good and evil or law and chaos? It might make sense for some higher power dedicated to maintaining the universe or something but people just don't normally think in those terms.
ipsi 12-17-03, 09:35 AM	There's one thing I've noticed here, with some people, and it could just be the 3.00am warping, but a number of you seem to be saying "You can't commit evil acts, and remain good. Or even Neutral. You have to be *EVIL*" That's ok, I can kinda get that, but what really strikes me as odd is this: "You can commit good acts while evil, and still remain evil" This seems to be a double standard, I suppose, with good acts having less weight than Evil ones. What that really is saying to me is that Good isn't as strong as Evil. And that's just wack. A number of you are going on about how comitting any evil act of any sort should start the character on the road to evil, if not just send them straight there outright. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 But how the hell does an Evil character stop being evil? It's far too 1 dimensional to cast all Evil characters as "eeevil". At some point, an Evil character can become good again, or for the first time. But I need a bit of sleep. I know what I'm trying to say, but I think I'm not expressing myself well enough for it to be clear. :shrug:
Bopple 12-17-03, 10:35 AM	One can redeem himself. I agree wholeheartedly. 1. But in everyday life, we see much more cases of a bad guy who once was a good one, than the opposite. So to say, it's very, very hard. 2. And if the one doesn't stop doing evil, he stays evil. If he kept killing one out of malice and saving one out of compassion everyday, is he evil? Probably. Or, at least, psychotic.
Millennium 12-17-03, 09:50 PM	Originally posted by ipsi There's one thing I've noticed here, with some people, and it could just be the 3.00am warping, but a number of you seem to be saying "You can't commit evil acts, and remain good. Or even Neutral. You have to be *EVIL*" That's ok, I can kinda get that, but what really strikes me as odd is this: "You can commit good acts while evil, and still remain evil" This seems to be a double standard, I suppose, with good acts having less weight than Evil ones. What that really is saying to me is that Good isn't as strong as Evil. Not less strong; less tolerant. This is one of the logical arguments that Evil has over Good, which is part of what keeps the alignment system interesting. Evil tolerates the occasional (or even the frequent) good act if it serves your agenda. But Good never tolerates evil. This is what makes moral dilemmas possible, and makes it possible to seduce even a paladin to evil.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 12-18-03, 10:17 AM	I've always played my Neutral rogue as pragmatic, but not selfish. He follows his intuition, his feelings, and what will guantee the survival of himself and those he loves. Laws can protect people or they can hurt people. There are random act of kindness and random acts of evil in the world. That's just life. He worships Fharlaghn. Life is traveling, and learning from the road. Example 1: We have a prisoner who is loyal to the BBEG trying to kill us. Fade says kill the prisoner. He has just tried to kill us, and it will deprive our enemy of an ally. Fade would not take any pleasure in killing a helpless opponent, but he doesn't feel any obligation to spare the guy just because he is now our prisoner, rather than having died in battle. After all he didn't surrender, he just couldn't fight anymore. (fluke, we reduced him to exactly 0 hp.) The lawful Good cleric wouldn't let anyone kill the prisoner, and through her actions the enemy escaped. Fade believes it would be approprate if this neglect on her part comes back to bite her in the butt. Example 2: Our group has business arrangements with the mining guild. There are two mines that we get a finder's percentage cut for. Collecting the money would be more trouble than it is worth, and frankly, Fade doesn't need the money. He instructed the guild to give his share to a family who he rescued and became friends with. (At this point they are probably approaching wealthy status from his share.) Example 3: Fade doesn't steal for monetary gain. It's not worth the risk, and he's got the stripes on his back to prove it. Thus he obeys the law, but not because it is law. Example 4: He respects the lawful good views of his wife, but does not respect those same views in the above mentioned cleric. Example 5: If he gives his word, he will keep it. So, he does not give it often, preferring not to be obligated and have his freedom of choice limited. This got him in trouble with another LG cleric and paladin. They wanted him to swear to stand against the woman he loved, and with them if they decided it was necessary. (there was a curse on her.) Not a chance in hell of that happening. Now, he has willingly taken the oath of handfasting, and all the loyalty, and being bound to another, which is inherent in that bond. None of these examples are nonpartisipatory or an attempt to actively balance L/C or G/E. He's not inclined to slide into evil. He defends those who cannot defend themselves (commoners, craftsmen, children) and those he loves with his life, not because of some high ideal of goodness, but because he understands his travels (life experience) would be diminished without them. He's inclined to believe that justice is just the name goody-goody's give to revenge to make themselves feel better about it. He likes children, not because children are innocent and good, but because they are fun to associate with.
Naeron 12-18-03, 10:53 AM	Originally posted by Bopple I think I have to agree to the opinion that good acts don't cancel evil acts. Let's say... A group of neutral people, who have the philosophy that everything should be in balance. Then they would crusade against the good today, then against the evil tomorrow? I don't think so. I agree with your first statement but not the second, because the Balance that they are trying to maintain is external and in the world around them, its not balancing their own good and evil acts. They need to look at the "Big Picture" and balance Good and Evil as overreaching concepts so that neither gain an upper hand over the other in the long term. So yes they could crusade against good one time and against evil the other. What they are trying to achieve is a world in which good and evil are in balance because both are necessary. What this means in practice is that Neutral characters often perform more good than evil because most campaigns revolve around the threat of evil winning over good. Its a common misconception that if a character does something good they must then do something evil to remain Neutral. What should be done is that individual acts should be committed to retain the balance as a whole, the small imbalances that arise from saving the princess are insignificant at this level and can be ignored. As with most things it is the intent of the act that is more important than the simple definition of the act. A Balance Neutral character can commit murder (an evil act) to prevent a major victory for good or evil and they retain their Neutral alignment. But they should not commit murder to balance out the fact that they gave money to the poor. This is very different from an "uncomitted neutral" character who should not commit evil or good acts with any great regularity. An occasional diversion should not matter too much and they should not try and match a good act with an evil act. Hmm, not sure this is that clear but I can't think of a better way to explain it.
Bopple 12-18-03, 01:23 PM	Well, I think your argument and mine are basically same. My point is, even philosophical neutrals wouldn't do a mass-murder this month, then another mass-murder next month to balance it. Perhaps they might kill some to balance out the actions of other parties, for the balance of the universe itself. But regularly doing good and evil, just because, "I am neutral, so I have to do both good and evil acts", is not philosophical neutral at all, it's just psychotic.
Eco-Mono 12-18-03, 01:42 PM	I've always had a slightly different idea of the conscious version of Neutral: that they view Good and Evil as equally valid (but not necessarily to be taken in equal portions). While not preaching some strange system of "Good points and Bad points," such a world view would see Good and Evil as being dangerous extremities when always adhered to. Such a person feels that morality is only useful to the extent that it balances out immorality, keeps the world working, and helps to gain friends and companions; if adhered to all the time, however, it becomes a needless hindrance. Similarly, N would think that immorality is just stupid-overkill when taken to an extreme, but that it must remain open as an option for when it is needed. I think this works.
Bopple 12-18-03, 02:19 PM	Hmm...that seems to be a pragmatic/selfish/ordinary man - neutral with evil tendency or neutral evil with neutral tendency, rather than conscious neutral. Because the concept sounds like, "Good and Evil are both valid, for Good is useful for everyday life and happiness, while Evil is useful in extreme situations, if it's not too evil." Or did I misunderstand anything?