Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 2303007" data-attributes="member: 3146">It might be interesting, but you'd then have to answer a number of questions that the neutral alignment lets other people dodge. For instance, assuming that good and evil can describe actions as well as people, are there any neutral actions or are all actions good or evil? (And if, so, what's the moral status of seemingly indifferent actions like eating Wheaties instead of Corn Flakes for breakfast or, for that matter, eating breakfast at all?) However, the biggest challenge would be evaluating the relationship between good and evil actions and good and evil alignment. How many good acts would it take to make an evil person good or how many evil acts to make a good person evil? I don't think there's an obvious answer to that unless it is that any evil act makes a (formerly) good person evil but no amount of good acts will make an evil person good. (This is especially true if you eliminate indifference or neutrality for actions as well since some evil people are certain to do the good thing when it comes to eating breakfast). That's a perfectly workable system, but it A. ceases to be alignment (since it no longer tells you about the relative tendencies of people) and B. ends up with rather a lot more shades of grey than you have even in normal D&D because nearly everyone will be evil but there is obviously some differentiation between the various kinds of evil people.In any event, eliminating neutrality would force you to have a much more robust and coherent philosophy of good and evil than D&D currently has or than most people have IRL.</blockquote>

Verification